Document 4218

CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Health Impact Appraisal ....................................................................................................................3
1.3 Aims and Objectives..........................................................................................................................3
1.4 Approach...........................................................................................................................................4
1.5 Methodology .....................................................................................................................................4
2
PROJECT PROFILE ...............................................................................................................................7
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Health Pathways................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................................7
2.4 Health Pathways................................................................................................................................9
3
COMMUNITY PROFILE.......................................................................................................................11
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................11
3.2 Data Sources ...................................................................................................................................11
3.3 Site Location and Setting.................................................................................................................11
3.4 Local Demographics ........................................................................................................................12
3.5 Existing Burden of Health ................................................................................................................17
3.6 Income and Employment .................................................................................................................27
3.7 Lifestyle...........................................................................................................................................39
3.8 Community Profile Summary............................................................................................................42
4
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT...........................................................................................................44
4.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................44
4.2 Engagement Strategy.......................................................................................................................44
5
ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................48
5.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................48
5.2 Potential Health Risk from Radiological Exposure ............................................................................48
5.3 Potential Health Risk from Electromagnetic Field Exposure ..............................................................59
5.4 Potential Health Risk from Changes in Air Quality ............................................................................62
5.5 Potential Health Risk from Additional Road Movements ..................................................................66
5.6 Potential Community Noise Impact..................................................................................................67
5.7 The Potential Social Impact from the Introduction of a Temporary Non-Home-Based Construction
Workforce................................................................................................................................................69
5.8 The Potential Change in Health Need from a Temporary Non-Home-Based Construction and
Maintenance Workforce...........................................................................................................................74
5.9 The Potential Socio-economic Health Benefits from Direct, Indirect and Induced Income and
Employment ............................................................................................................................................78
6
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................82
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
1
6.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................82
6.2 Assessment Conclusions.................................................................................................................82
7
HEALTH ACTION PLAN ......................................................................................................................84
7.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................84
7.2 Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan............................................................................84
7.3 Coordinated Traffic Management and Waste Management Plan.......................................................85
7.4 Community Forum and Community Engagement..............................................................................86
7.5 Community Support and Integration Initiatives................................................................................86
Appendix A:
Final HIA Scoping Report
Appendix B:
Stakeholder Interview Transcrripts and Supporting Information
Appendix C:
Radiological Assessment and Supporting Health Evidence Base
A.C.1
Assessed Doses to the Critical Group ...................................................................122
A.C.2
Radiological Assessment Evidence Base ..............................................................137
A.C.3
Health Concerns Linking Cancer Incidence and Exposure to Low Level Radiation..146
2
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1.1.1
NNB Generation Company Limited (Company number 06937084), part of EDF Energy, is the
Company that will lead the new nuclear programme in the UK. For the purpose of this
consultation, NNB Generation Company Limited is referred to as EDF Energy.
1.1.2
EDF Energy proposes to develop a new nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C), at Hinkley Point,
near to Bridgwater, Somerset. The proposed Development will be adjacent to the existing
Hinkley Point power station complex, which currently comprises Hinkley Point A, (which is being
decommissioned) and Hinkley Point B (scheduled to continue generating electricity until at
least 2016). The proposed Development will comprise two UK EPRs, which will be capable of
producing electricity for the equivalent of up to 5 million homes.
1.1.3
RPS has been commissioned by EDF Energy to perform a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of the
Hinkley Point C Project to support the Stage 2 Consultation.
1.2
Health Impact Appraisal
1.2.1
HIA is a multidisciplinary process designed to identify and assess the potential health effects
(both adverse and beneficial) of a proposed project, plan or programme, and to deliver
evidence based recommendations that maximise health gains and reduce or remove potential
negative impacts or inequalities.
1.2.2
Although not a regulatory requirement to the UK planning process, HIA is implied under Section
4.8 (Human Health and Wellbeing) and Section 4.13 (Demographics) of the Draft National Policy
Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6). HIA is deemed prudent and necessary at the
project level by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Appraisal of Sustainability Site
Report for Hinkley Point) and necessary to inform the IPC process. Beyond the planning and
decision making process, the HIA is also intended to support the development of more effective
community support initiatives, and to address more effectively remaining perceptions of health
risk that can lead to needless community stress and anxiety.
1.3
Aims and Objectives
1.3.1
The core objectives of the HIA are to:




provide iterative health support during the planning stage;
quantify the magnitude, distribution and likelihood of potential health outcomes (both
adverse and beneficial) directly attributable to the proposed development (both the
proposed facility and off-site associated development);
provide a HIA document suitable for submission as a supplementary planning document
and geared to inform the IPC process; and
develop a Health Action Plan to:
o further address potential risks, community disruption and perceived health risks;
o facilitate the uptake of local health benefits; and
o support strategic health care planning.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3
1.4
Approach
1.4.1
The basis of the HIA is set on a broad socio-economic model of health that encompasses
conventional health impacts such as communicable disease, accidents and risk along with
wider determinants of health vital to achieving good health and well-being (Ref. 1). A key
aspect of the approach is iteratively to support and build upon the technical information
provided within the Environmental Appraisal. Such an approach ensures the accuracy of the
HIA and consistency with the Environmental Appraisal and provides a solid basis to the
assessment.
1.4.2
The iterative approach to the HIA has also provided a means to facilitate a more coordinated
approach to planning, environment and health, and the HIA has been subject to refinement
through phased review by the ES team and independent advisors.
1.5
Methodology
a) Refinement and Confirmation of the HIA Scope
1.5.1
The scope and focus of the HIA was primarily refined though the provision of a formal HIA
scoping report issued to key stakeholders, including but not limited to:




Somerset County Council;
Sedgemoor District Council;
West Somerset Council; and
Taunton Deane Borough Council.
1.5.2
This was supplemented through consultation with Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT), the South
West Public Health Observatory (SWPHO) and through additional interviews with Somerset
County Council and technical representatives of Sedgemoor District and West Somerset
Council.
1.5.3
The scope and focus of the HIA has therefore been primarily set to inform the IPC process and
iteratively refined to address key stakeholder and local community health concerns.
b) Project Profile
1.5.4
The purpose of the project profile is to identify those relevant features associated with the
proposed development that are potential influences on key determinants of health. The profile
has been compiled through a review of project specific and more generic information including:




4
the iterative and final outputs of the Environmental Appraisal and associated technical
appendices (including air quality, noise, traffic and socio-economic assessment) relevant to
the HIA;
the Hinkley Point C Pre-Application Consultation documents;
the EDF Energy Hinkley Point C Project Description; and
ongoing consultation with EDF Energy and the Environmental Appraisal project team.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
c) Community Profile
1.5.5
Evidence suggests that different communities have varying susceptibilities to health impacts
and benefits as a result of social and demographic structure, behaviour and relative economic
circumstance (Ref. 2)(Ref. 3). A community profile therefore not only forms the basis to
exposure response modelling but also allows an insight as to how potential health pathways
identified within the project profile may act disproportionately upon certain communities and
sensitive receptors.
1.5.6
The community profile has drawn from the existing baseline within the socio-economic
assessment, supplemented with small area demographic, health and hospital admissions data
provided by the South West Public Health Observatory, the Somerset PCT and the Joint Strategic
Needs Assessment for the region.
d) Stakeholder Engagement
1.5.7
An important component of gathering an appropriate evidence base and tailoring the HIA to
local circumstance is seeking the views of stakeholders and key representatives of those
communities likely to be affected. By highlighting and responding to community health
concerns, the HIA can be applied to address perceived as well as actual health risks, and in so
doing, develop more effective recommendations to reduce impacts and improve the uptake of
potential health benefits.
1.5.8
A significant level of pre-application consultation has already been undertaken by EDF Energy.
As such, the HIA has implemented a tiered approach, building upon existing community
consultation supplemented with specific engagement with appropriate community
representatives and individuals responsible for maintaining local community health.
1.5.9
The individual tiers of HIA engagement included the following, and are discussed in more detail
within Section 4:







review of earlier Hinkley Point C project, notably the Michael Barnes QC Public Inquiry 1987;
review of Stage 1 consultation outputs;
review of previous Community Forum Meeting Minutes;
HIA scoping exercise with key stakeholders;
face to face interview with Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT);
telephone interview with the South West Public Health Observatory (SWPHO); and
telephone Interview with Somerset County Council and technical representatives of
Sedgemoor District and West Somerset Council.
e) Assessment
1.5.10
The assessment stage addresses each of the core health pathways identified during the project
profile, community profile and stakeholder engagement stage, applying internationally
recognised quantitative assessment methods to establish the distribution, significance and
likelihood of worst-case potential health outcomes directly attributable to the proposed
development.
1.5.11
The assessment stage draws upon appropriate technical topic areas within the Environmental
Appraisal to ensure the HIA is based upon realistic changes in environmental and socioeconomic conditions directly attributed to the construction and operation of the proposed
facility and the off-site associated developments.
1.5.12
Key assessment methods applied include:

quantitative risk assessment based on changes in exposure to radiation and radioactive
materials, set in the context of recognised constraints, targets and limits, cumulative
impacts and naturally occurring environmental exposure;
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5





f)
1.5.13
quantitative exposure response modelling for changes in PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2
exposure during construction, operation and from associated transport movements;
quantitative assessment based on changes in exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and
electromagnetic interference (EMI);
quantitative risk assessment from changes in vehicle movements;
qualitative appraisal as to community disruption, annoyance and potential health outcome
from changes in construction and operational noise; and
qualitative appraisal as to the socio-economic health benefits from direct, indirect and
induced income and employment opportunities.
Health Action Plan
A Health Action Plan (HAP) (Section 7) has been developed to expand upon the standard
recommendations section within HIA guidance. It establishes recommended protocols and
monitoring regimes to be implemented to further reduce and remove predicted potential
adverse health outcomes and disruption, whilst maximising opportunities to increase the
uptake of local health benefits. The HAP also identifies information local communities require
back to address and alleviate specific health concerns and perceived risks.
g) Report Structure
1.5.14
It is appreciated that, given that the HIA is intended to both inform the planning process and
local communities, additional support is required to guide the varied audience to the sections
of key interest. A summary of each section and its purpose is provided below.






6
Chapter 2 Project Profile: provides a brief summary of the proposed development, lists key
construction and operational phases and concludes with a summary of the health issues to
be investigated within the HIA. The purpose of this section is to define and justify the initial
scope and focus of the HIA.
Chapter 3 Community Profile: provides a baseline to the HIA, defining the local population,
the existing burden of health, local circumstance and their relative sensitivity to potential
health outcomes. The purpose of the community profile is to provide a basis to the
assessment, and to aid in developing more effective mitigation and community support
initiatives within the Health Action Plan.
Chapter 4 Stakeholder Engagement: catalogues how engagement with key stakeholders
including Local Authorities and the Primary Care Trust was applied to further refine the
scope and focus of the HIA, and to address local community concerns.
Chapter 5 Assessment: applies the previous sections to assess and appraise the
magnitude, likelihood and distribution of potential health outcomes (both adverse and
beneficial) directly attributed to the proposed development.
Chapter 6 Conclusions: draws together the findings of the entire HIA, presenting the final
conclusion on the potential health outcome from construction and operational stages.
Chapter 7 Health Action Plan: presents a series of recommendations to further reduce
community disruption, remove barriers to health benefit uptake and maximise opportunities
to improve local circumstance, health and wellbeing. It is important to note that such
recommendations are not limited to EDF Energy, and include recommendations to Local
Authorities and the Primary Care Trust.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
2
PROJECT PROFILE
2.1
Introduction
2.1.1
The following section draws from the project outline provided within the Environmental
Appraisal and sets the scope of potential health pathways to be investigated in greater detail
within the assessment stage. For the sake of brevity, the HIA does not seek to repeat the
detailed project outline provided within the Environmental Appraisal, but outlines the key
aspects of the project and the associated health pathways to be assessed. For more detailed
project information, please refer to the Environmental Appraisal.
2.2
Health Pathways
2.2.1
A health pathway can be described as the way in which an activity influences a known
determinant of health. As an example of how the health pathway concept is applied,
construction activities are known to influence environmental determinants of health including
air, noise and traffic. A health pathway is identified when such influences have the opportunity
to impact on communities with the potential to cause a response or health outcome.
2.2.2
The identification of potential health pathways helps to define and rationalise the scope of the
study, from which it is possible to develop a suitable evidence base and a more informed
community profile. Such an approach also provides the means to inform EDF Energy and the
wider Environmental Appraisal project team as to potential health issues and opportunities at a
stage in which they can be more effectively addressed through design. The distribution,
magnitude and significance of potential health pathways are then investigated within the
assessment stage.
2.2.3
It is important to note that the potential health pathways identified at this stage do not take into
account facility design features or construction, operation or traffic management plans
designed to remove or reduce potential influences. As such, the HIA applies a consistently
conservative approach to assessing potential health outcomes.
2.3
Project Description
2.3.1
The HIA considers the on-site construction and operation of a new nuclear power station
(Hinkley Point C) to be located west of Hinkley Point A and B, and the proposed off-site
associated developments necessary to deliver the project. The full description of the Hinkley
Point C Project including reactor type, energy output and grid connection is provided within the
Environmental Appraisal.
2.3.2
The off-site associated developments relate to transport and accommodation necessary to
deliver the proposed development. The primary objectives of the off-site associated
developments are to:







minimise potential risk from collision from construction traffic movements;
minimise disruption and congestion during peak transport periods;
meet the needs of the construction workforce;
aid the integration of the construction workforce within local communities;
ensure that impacts associated with the construction phase are minimised;
maximise the potential socio-economic benefits to local communities; and
provide legacy benefits in terms of improved infrastructure to local communities.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
7
2.3.3
The selection of preferred proposals to which this Stage 2 consultation relates has been subject
to iterative refinement and has benefited from input from the local authorities. Such input has
been applied to further manage potential disruption, design out potential risks, and realise the
maximum uptake of community health benefits from income and employment opportunities
and infrastructure legacy benefits.
2.3.4
A summary of the proposed off-site associated developments is provided in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Proposed Off-Site Associated Development
Associated Development
Proposed Development
Cannington bypass
A bypass to the west of Cannington is proposed by EDF Energy to divert
extraneous construction maintenance and operational traffic away from
the centre of the village
The bypass will comprise carriageway, verges and landscape buffers.
Accommodation campuses
In addition to the temporary accommodation campuses for up to 700
persons proposed within the south-east area of the Hinkley Point C
development site, the accommodation strategy also includes proposals
for off-site accommodation campuses.
These will comprise the following:
 en-suite bedrooms, communal amenity space and facilities,
recreational facilities including sport facilities;
 parking spaces for cars, bicycles and motorcycles; and
 associated highways works.
Park and ride facilities
As part of EDF Energy’s transport strategy, the provision of four temporary
park and ride facilities will seek to reduce traffic movements to and from
the Hinkley Point C site by consolidating trips.
The park and ride facilities are expected to comprise the following:
 parking spaces for cars, motorcycles and bicycles;
 bus pick-up and drop-off points; and
 single storey building containing security and welfare facilities.
Freight logistics facilities
The three temporary freight logistics facilities are expected to comprise
the following:
 parking spaces for light and heavy good vehicles; and
 a warehouse building (not at junction 24);
Refurbishment of
Combwich Wharf
Combwich Wharf will be used for the delivery of freight via water. Land
adjacent to the Wharf will be used for a freight logistics storage facility for
water borne freight.
Combwich Wharf will be designed to handle abnormal indivisible loads
and other materials during the construction phase.
The Wharf will handle several deliveries per year during the operational
phase.
2.3.5
8
Section 5 provides a more in depth discussion as to the individual options and their potential
influence upon local community health.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
2.4
Health Pathways
2.4.1
Table 2.2 provides a summary of potential health pathways associated with the construction
and operation of the proposed development and represents the scope of this HIA. As stated in
Section 2.2.2, the purpose of Table 2.2 is to define the key health pathways to be assessed in
detail within the HIA (including community and key stakeholder health concerns).
Table 2.2: Project Profile Summary and Health Impact Appraisal Scope
Feature
Health Pathway
Potential
Implication
Geographic Scope
Construction
phase
Changes to local air quality (including
potential dust nuisance)
Adverse
Local
Changes in noise exposure
Adverse
Local
Changes in local transport nature and
flow rates
Adverse
Local/Regional
Increased direct, indirect and induced
employment opportunities
Beneficial
Local/Regional
Raised awareness, education and
training
Beneficial
Local/regional
Potential impact on tourism
Unclear
Local/Regional
A potential change in local population
structure, with potential implications
for local amenities facilities and health
care requirements
Unclear
Local/Regional
A potential change in communicable
disease from the temporary
construction workforce
Adverse
Local
A potential change in social structure
and interactions with the existing
community, influencing local
community resources and services
(including education, health care and
policing)
Unclear
Local
Direct, indirect and induced income
employment opportunities
Beneficial
Local/Regional
Raised awareness, education and
training (managing perceptions of risk,
alleviating unnecessary stress and
anxiety with associated physical and
mental health benefits)
Beneficial
Local/Regional
Operational
Period
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
9
Feature
10
Health Pathway
Potential
Implication
Geographic Scope
Low carbon and secure Energy
Generation: meeting energy demand,
and reducing reliance upon increasing
energy costs associated with
diminishing fossil fuel reserves
Benefit
National/Global
Energy Generation: offsetting
emissions from conventional fossil fuel
energy generation
Benefit
National/Global
Potential changes in exposure to
radiation and radioactive materials
Adverse
Local/Regional
Community perceived risk of increased
cancer prevalence and infant mortality
Adverse
Local/Regional
Changes in local transport nature and
flow rates (a potential increased risk of
vehicle collision)
Adverse
Local
Education and training (improved skills
base, improving socio-economic health
benefits)
Benefit
Local/Regional
Potential changes in exposure to
electromagnetic fields from proposed
new substation and distribution
system.
Adverse
Local
General health and safety of the
surrounding local communities
Adverse
Local
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
/National
3
COMMUNITY PROFILE
3.1
Introduction
3.1.1
Evidence suggests that different communities express varying sensitivity to health effects (both
adverse and beneficial) as a consequence of relative socio-economic status, deprivation and
existing health burden. A community profile not only provides a means to establish changes in
community exposure to certain health pathways, but also provides a means to further interpret
the distribution and significance of effects associated with the proposed development, and to
aid the development of a bespoke Health Action Plan.
3.1.2
The community profile has been refined following stakeholder engagement to investigate a
number of local concerns regarding the existing burden of health and specific sensitive
communities. Given the scope of the HIA, covering both the on-site development and the offsite associated developments, the community profile provides a local level overview for the
appropriate areas, contrasted against regional and national trends.
3.2
Data Sources
3.2.1
The community profile supplements the baseline data collated as part of the socio-economic
assessment (Volume 2 of the Environmental Appraisal) with demographic, socio-economic and
health data sourced from Somerset PCT, the South West Public Health Observatory and from the
Somerset Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) (Ref. 6).
3.3
Site Location and Setting
h) On-Site Development
3.3.1
The existing Hinkley Point Power Station is located on the Severn Estuary in Somerset,
approximately 5 miles from Bridgwater within the Sedgemoor District, 15 miles from Minehead
to the west and 6 miles from Burnham-on-Sea. The proposed Hinkley Point C will be located
immediately to the west of the existing Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station Complex. The
nearest residential areas to the proposed new reactor buildings are the hamlets of Shurton and
Burton to the south of the site and Stolford to the east.
i)
3.3.2
OII-Site Development
A number of off-site associated development options are proposed within the villages of
Cannington and Combwich, and the towns of Bridgwater in Sedgemoor District and Williton in
West Somerset.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 11
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.4
Local Demographics
a) Population Size and Density
3.4.1
According to the mid-year 2007 estimates, the three immediate districts of Sedgemoor, West
Somerset and Taunton Deane have a combined population of approximately 256,000 (Ref. 4).
As shown in Table 3.1, Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane are of a similar population size with a
population density in keeping with the South West trend. In contrast, West Somerset is more
rural in nature, exhibiting a lower population number and a significantly lower population
density than local, regional or national averages.
Table 3.1: Population Density, Mid-2007
Area
Area Size (Hectares)
Population
(Mid-2007)
Population Density
(per hectare) 2007
Sedgemoor
56,436
112,200
2.0
West Somerset
72,535
35,400
0.5
Taunton Deane
46,236
108,200
2.3
Somerset
345,055
522,800
1.5
South West
2,383,674
5,178,000
2.2
England
13,027,872
51,092,000
3.9
3.4.2
The three wards closest to the proposed Facility (Cannington and Quantocks, Quantock Vale
and West Quantocks) have a relatively small population (10,403 persons) displaying an
average population density of 0.56 persons per hectare (PPH). The highest levels of population
density are typically displayed in urban centres of Taunton, Bridgwater, Minehead and
Burnham(Ref. 4).
3.4.3
Population density is shown in Figure 3.1. Due to changes in the administrative boundaries,
population densities for these ward-level areas are based on 2001 Census data.
3.4.4
Low population density presents challenges for the provision of appropriate transport
infrastructure, the viability and accessibility of local services, and employment opportunities.
12
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Figure 3.1: Population Density Mapping (2001)
b) Population Structure
i)
3.4.5
Age
Somerset exhibits a typically mature population, where one in four people are above the
statutory retirement age. However, the age structure within Somerset is not uniform. As shown
in Figure 3.2 the resident community within the Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane districts exhibit
an age structure that is generally consistent with the regional and national trend (Ref. 4).
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 13
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Figure 3.2: Age Structure (expressed as a percentage of the total)
35
Percentage of the population (%)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sedgemoor
3.4.6
Somerset
South West
England
0-15
18.4
18.6
14.4
18.4
17.8
18.9
16-29
14.5
15.8
12.7
14.8
17.1
18.6
30-44
19.3
19.8
14.2
19.2
20
21.7
45-64 (males), 60 & over (females)
24.6
23.1
25.9
24.1
22.9
21.9
65 & over (males), 60 & over (females)
23.2
22.6
32.8
23.6
22.1
18.9
In contrast, West Somerset exhibits the second highest proportion of older people in England,
with 30% of the population being over the age of retirement, nearly double the national average
(16.1%) (Ref. 4).
ii)
3.4.7
Taunton Deane West Somerset
Working Age Population
From a review of the demographic data available for the region, it is evident that the districts
immediately adjoining the proposed development are expected to experience an increasing
ageing population. This will influence the burden of health in the area (age related morbidity),
the subsequent type of health care requirements and the level of economically active
individuals (influencing the type and viability of local service and amenities).
iii) Ethnicity
3.4.8
Somerset, and the three immediate districts exhibit a relatively homogenous resident
population (predominately white British), with a lower ethnic diversity of 5.4% below the
national and regional average. However, there are signs of increasing diversification, typically
through an increase in migrant workers. In Somerset between 2004 to 2009, 8,370 migrant
workers from the EU States registered with the Workers Registration Scheme (Ref. 5).
c) Population Growth
3.4.9
14
As shown in Table 3.2, between mid-2001 and mid-2007 the population of Sedgemoor,
Taunton Deane and West Somerset districts increased by approximately 12,200. The local
population increase is marginally higher than increases exhibited by the south-west region and
England. The highest population increases were observed in Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane,
whilst population growth in West Somerset was less than 1%.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table 3.2: Population Growth, 2001-2007
Area
Population,
Mid 2001
Population
(Mid-2007)
% Population
Growth, 2001-2007
Sedgemoor
106,000
112,200
5.8
Taunton Deane
102,600
108,200
5.5
West Somerset
35,100
35,400
0.9
Somerset
498,700
522,800
4.8
South West
4,943,400
5,178,000
4.7
England
49,449,700
51,092,000
3.3
3.4.10
The latest official sub-national population projection for local authority areas were published in
2008 by the Office of National Statistics to forecast future population trends from 2006-2031
(based upon previous trends and the delivery of housing targets) (Ref. 4).
3.4.11
As shown in Table 3.3, in keeping with the current trend, the populations of Sedgemoor and
Taunton Deane are expected to continue to increase between 2006 to 2026 by approximately
24%. This rate of population growth is above projected population growth rates for the South
West (19.8%) and England (16%). In contrast, population growth projections for West Somerset
are lower than the national and regional average at 12% between 2006 and 2026.
Table 3.3: ONS Population Projections, 2006-2026
Area
2006
2016
2026
Forecasted
Population
Growth (no.
persons)
Percentage
Growth,
2006-2026
(%)
Sedgemoor
111,000
124,000
137,700
26,700
24.1
Taunton Deane
107,400
119,900
132,800
25,400
23.6
West Somerset
35,300
36,700
39,400
4,100
11.6
Somerset
518,600
572,900
631,800
113,200
21.8
South West
5,124,100
5,620,400
6,138,900
1,014,800
19.8
England
50,762,900
54,724,200
58,682,400
7,919,500
15.6
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 15
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.4.12
Importantly, the age structure of such population growth is not anticipated to be uniform. As
shown in Table 3.4, Sedgemoor, West Somerset and Taunton Deane are all expecting an
increasing ageing population higher than both the regional and national average. However,
West Somerset is also expecting to see a decline in younger age groups (age groups 0-14 and
15-59/65), representing a decline in its working age population, and a relative change in the
burden of health and local health care needs (i.e. age related health care requirements) (Ref. 4).
Table 3.4: ONS Population Projections by Broad Age Group, 2006-2026
Area
Percentage Growth (%)
Aged 0-14
Aged 15-59/65
Aged 60/65+
Sedgemoor
+16%
+11%
+64%
Taunton Deane
+19%
+13%
+56%
West Somerset
-4%
-7%
+51%
Somerset
+14%
+9%
+61%
South West
+15%
+10%
+51%
England
+14%
+8%
+44%
d) Migration
3.4.13
The latest estimates on internal migration flows at the local authority area level are available for
mid-2007 to mid-2008 and summarised in Table 3.5 below. The data shows an annual net
inflow of approximately 700 persons to Sedgemoor, with smaller inflows into Taunton Deane
and West Somerset (+500 and +300 respectively).
Table 3.5: ONS Migration Flows for Immediate Districts, 2007-2008
16
Area
Migration into
District
Migration out of
District
Migration Net Flow
Sedgemoor
4,900
4,300
+ 700
Taunton Deane
4,800
4,300
+ 500
West Somerset
2,100
1,800
+ 300
Total
c.11,800
c10,400
+ c1,400
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.4.14
In 2007-2008, there was a net outward migration of people in the 16-24 age group in
Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane, further contributing towards the top heavy age demographic in
the area. As detailed in the JSNA, such outward migration is thought to be as a result of few
opportunities for higher education, a lack of employment and career opportunities and a lack of
affordable housing in the area. Such migration trends contribute towards the proportion of the
population who are economically inactive, impacting upon socio-economic health and also
skew the age related burden of health in the area.
3.4.15
Numbers of migrant workers are increasing significantly in Somerset in all areas (and in the
whole of the south west region). In Somerset between 2003/04 and 2005/06 numbers
increased from 1,255 to 3,175 (an increase of 153%), based on National Insurance registration
data.
3.4.16
Mapping in South Somerset and Mendip indicated the main groups of migrant workers were
Polish, Portuguese and Filipino with the majority (over 90%) aged between 18 and 44 years.
Main occupations of migrant workers (based on South Somerset data) include administration,
business and management; manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality and catering, health and
medical services.
3.4.17
A number of community associations in Somerset have been established – including
Portuguese and Polish communities.
3.5
Existing Burden of Health
a) Life Expectancy
As shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4, the average life expectancy for both males and females
from birth in the three immediate districts remains consistently higher than the national trend.
West Somerset has the highest life expectancy for males and females and in particular, female
life expectancy at birth has significantly increased since 2003-2005.
Figure 3.3: Female Life Expectancy
85.0
84.5
84.0
Life Expectancy (years)
3.5.1
83.5
Sedgemoor
83.0
Taunton Deane
82.5
West Somerset
82.0
England
81.5
81.0
80.5
80.0
20002002
20012003
20022004
20032005
20042006
20052007
20062008
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 17
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Figure 3.4: Male Life Expectancy
80.0
79.5
Life Expectancy (years)
79.0
78.5
Sedgemoor
78.0
Taunton Deane
77.5
West Somerset
77.0
England
76.5
76.0
75.5
75.0
20002002
3.5.2
20012003
20022004
20032005
20042006
20052007
20062008
As shown in Figure 3.4, male life expectancy in the three immediate districts has remained
consistently higher than national trend, although the gap between the national trend and the
three immediate districts is closing.
b) All Age All Cause Mortality
3.5.3
As shown in Figure 3.5, and in keeping with life expectancy trends, the all age all cause
mortality rates (per 100,000 head of population) vary between Sedgemoor, West Somerset and
Taunton Deane, yet remain consistently lower than the national average.
Directly age-standardised rate of mortality per 100,000
population
Figure 3.5: Directly Age-standardised Rate of Mortality for all Age, all Causes
per 100,000 Population (2003-2008)
18
650
630
610
590
570
550
530
510
490
470
450
2003-2005
2004-2006
2005-2007
2006-2008
Sedgemoor
584.3
559.3
545.1
544.3
Taunton Deane
568.7
546.9
543.4
531.9
West Somerset
534.6
504.6
504.3
491.5
England
633.5
610.5
594.7
581.9
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.5.4
Figure 3.6 provides a summary of the directly age standardised mortality rate at the lowest
geographic level available (Lower Super Output Area LSOA). The LSOAs have been grouped into
three categories by the Somerset PCT indicating communities with high, medium and low
mortality rates.
3.5.5
As shown, areas displaying higher rates of mortality typically coincide with the larger urban
areas of Bridgwater, Burnham, Minehead, around Williton and the Wellington area in Taunton
Deane.
Figure 3.6: Directly Age-standardised Rate of Mortality from all Causes (per 100,000 population)
2006-2008
c) Standardised Mortality Ratio
3.5.6
The Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) is a method of comparing mortality levels in different
years, or for different sub-populations in the same year, while taking account of differences in
population structure. The ratio is of observed to expected deaths, multiplied conventionally by
100. Therefore, where mortality levels are higher in the population being studied than would be
expected, the SMR will be greater than 100.
3.5.7
As shown in Table 3.6, the average SMR between 1999-2003 for men and women within
Sedgemoor, West Somerset and Taunton Deane remain consistently below 100, representing a
lower mortality rate than is typically expected for such populations.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 19
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table 3.6: Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) by area between 1999-2003
Area
3.5.8
20
Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)
All Persons
Males
Females
Sedgemoor
92
93
90
Taunton Deane
88
90
86
West Somerset
80
83
77
South West
89
89
88
The Standardised Mortality Ratio for selected causes of death between 2004-2006 are given in
Table 3.7. As shown, the Standardised Mortality Ratio for all cancers and all circulatory disease
is typically lower than is expected for such populations. However, Standardised Mortality Ratio
vary for individual types of cancer, and are in some cases they are higher or significantly lower
than would be expected for such a population. It is important to note that such incidence is not
consistent with radiological exposure, but is more age related and lifestyle associated. In
particular, Sedgemoor, Taunton Deane and West Somerset exhibit significantly higher rates of
Skin Cancer than would be expected for such populations.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
All Causes
Stroke
Coronary heart disease
All Circulatory Diseases
Colorectal cancer
Cervical cancer
Breast cancer
Other skin cancer
Malignant melanoma of skin
Lung cancer
All Cancers
Cause of Death
Sex
91
92
Females
94
Females
Males
83
92
Females
Males
106
90
Females
Males
96
126
Females
Males
91
Males
90
92
97
97
84
86
87
90
111
73
91
89
96
91
83
90
88
90
120
86
92
91
100
94
91
91
93
92
101
97
94
-
99
-
95
104
132
125
78
81
94
93
South West
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
81
80
81
73
77
85
78
84
99
105
120
105
115
Females
16
-
77
Males
95
162
100
101
153
133
135
125
63
72
94
88
Somerset
Females
277
203
140
75
52
70
92
79
West Somerset
-
73
Females
153
99
117
69
70
92
88
Taunton Deane
Males
199
117
Females
Males
185
85
Females
Males
72
101
Females
Males
92
Males
Sedgemoor
Table 3.7: Standardised Mortality Ratio for Selected Causes of Death (2004-2006)
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 |
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
d) Cancer
3.5.9
As indicated in the Somerset Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (Ref. 6), Cancer is the leading
cause of death in Somerset followed by Ischaemic Heart Disease and Stroke.
3.5.10
In 2005 there were a total of 1,452 deaths from cancer in Somerset. Of these deaths, 226 were
from lung cancer, 198 from colorectal cancer and 132 from breast cancer. As shown in Figure
3.7, the age standardised premature mortality rate from all cancers in Somerset has been
consistently lower than the national average, and reducing in line with the national trend for
England.
Figure 3.7: Death Rate of those Aged less than 75 from Cancer
3.5.11
However, the incidence of cancer continues to rise throughout the UK due to the ageing
population, and this is predicted to increase by approximately one third between 2001 and
2020.
3.5.12
Although cancer prevalence and premature mortality rates are consistently lower than the
national average in Somerset, consultation indicates that there remain a number of concerns
regarding the health of communities around Hinkley Point, particularly in the Burnham area.
Specifically, a number of reports have been published, indicating elevated risks of breast
cancer (Ref 7), prostate cancer (Ref 8), childhood leukaemia (Ref 9) and other cancers. It has
been postulated that the causative factor is associated with discharges of low level radioactive
effluents to the environment from the nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point (Ref 9). The
methodology of these studies has been criticised by the independent Committee on Medical
Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. COMARE is an independent expert advisory
committee to Government Departments and Devolved Authorities) (Ref. 10) (Ref. 11) (Ref. 12).
3.5.13
Given that cancer risk is a key concern, a summary of the general concerns and issues raised
over the past 25 years, and the scientific responses to these concerns, is presented in
Appendix C. The remainder of this section outlines the evidence from the scientific community
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 21
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
concerning cancer incidence within the Burnham population and other areas in the vicinity of
Hinkley Point.
3.5.14
The South West Cancer Intelligence Service (SWCIS) is a division within the South West Public
Health Observatory to create and maintain a comprehensive, accurate, timely and accessible
register of cancers suitable for, amongst other things, research into causes of, and survival
from, cancer. The SWCIS was asked by Somerset Coast Primary Care Trust (PCT) to look at the
incidence of cancer in the wards of Burnham North, Burnham South, Highbridge and Berrow
(Ref. 13).
3.5.15
The PCT was responding to local concerns following the publication of the results of a survey
conducted by Green Audit in Burnham North (Ref. 7) (Ref. 8) (Ref. 9), which claimed to have
identified an increased incidence of cancers of the female breast, kidney and cervix and of
leukaemia. A hypothesis had been proposed by Green Audit suggesting that these increased
incidence rates were attributable to exposure of the population of Burnham North to airborne
dust particles contaminated with radioactivity from the Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station.
3.5.16
The SWCIS study found no significant correlation between the Standardised Registration Ratio
(SRR) by ward for all cancers combined or lung cancer or leukaemia alone and distance from
Hinkley Point or the mudflats on the River Parrett (Ref. 13). Similarly the study has found no
evidence that the overall incidence of cancer in Burnham North or Berrow is higher than
expected. The Standardised Registration Ratio for leukaemia (all types combined) was
significantly raised in Burnham North. However, this group comprised several different types of
leukaemia – half of which were Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL), a cancer for which there
is no scientific evidence of a link to ionising radiation. Similarly high incidence rates for all
leukaemias combined are found elsewhere in Somerset and the South West. Expert advice
cited in the SWCIS study is that variations in registration rates for CLL – a cancer frequently
detected on routine blood tests in people with no cancer specific symptoms – are most likely to
be due to differences in rates of case ascertainment.
3.5.17
In Burnham South and Highbridge the overall Standardised Registration Ratio for cancer was
significantly raised, but this was largely accounted for by a high breast cancer incidence rate in
1999. This followed a round of breast screening in these areas. SWCIS note that similar
patterns of temporary increased incidence have been found in other areas following breast
screening (Ref. 13).
3.5.18
SWCIS has found no evidence of increased risk of cancer linked to radiation in these wards.
3.5.19
These results were presented to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the
Environment COMARE. The Committee agreed that the study showed no evidence of a link
between exposure to radiation from Hinkley Point Power Nuclear Station and increased
incidence of cancer in the Burnham area (Ref. 14).
3.5.20
Thus while similar concerns have been raised from time to time with respect to other nuclear
installations in the UK and elsewhere, to date the balance of scientific evidence is that levels of
radioactivity encountered in the environment resulting from the operation of licensed nuclear
facilities cannot be identified as the cause of observable increased risks of cancer incidence or
mortality.
e) Cardiovascular Disease
3.5.21
22
The number of deaths from circulatory disease (including conditions such as heart disease,
heart blood pressure and stroke) are often linked to lifestyle and socio-economic status
(smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol consumption and poor diet). As shown in Table 3.8, with
the exception of West Somerset, hospital admission rates relating to circulatory diseases are
typically higher than the Somerset average.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table 3.8: Hospital Admissions for all Circulatory Diseases (April 2007 – March 2009)
3.5.22
District
Directly Standardised Rate for all Circulatory Hospital Admissions
(per 100,000)
Sedgemoor
1,383
Taunton Deane
1,382
West Somerset
1,144
Somerset
1,346
West Somerset exhibits a lower hospital admissions rate for all circulatory diseases than the
neighbouring local districts and for Somerset overall. However, as shown in Figure 3.8, hospital
admission rates are not uniform throughout the area, displaying higher rates of hospital
admissions in urban areas.
Figure 3.8: Directly Standardised Rate for Hospital Admissions Relating to Circulatory Disease
(per 100,000)
Sedgemoor
West Somerset
Taunton Dean
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 23
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
f)
3.5.23
Respiratory Disease
As shown in Table 3.9, Sedgemoor exhibits a similar rate of hospital admissions for respiratory
diseases to the overall Somerset area. In contrast, Taunton Deane exhibits a moderately higher
rate, while West Somerset again demonstrates a lower burden of poor respiratory health than
the neighbouring Districts.
Table 3.9: Hospital Admissions for all Respiratory Diseases (April 2007-March 2009)
3.5.24
District
Directly standardised rate for all Respiratory Hospital Admissions
(per 100,000)
Sedgemoor
1,164
Taunton Deane
1,234
West Somerset
1,094
Somerset
1,139
As shown in Figure 3.9, respiratory hospital admission rates are not uniform throughout the
area. Respiratory hospital admission rates are typically low in proximity to Hinkley Point with
higher rates of admission in urban areas.
Figure 3.9: Directly Standardised Rate for Hospital Admissions Relating to Respiratory Disease
(per 100,000)
24
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
g) Excess Winter Mortality
3.5.25
In the winter period of December to March 2008/09 there were an estimated 36,700 more
deaths in England and Wales, compared with the average for the non-winter period. This was
an increase of 49 per cent compared with the number in the previous winter 2007/08. This is
the highest number of excess winter deaths since the winter of 1999/2000.
3.5.26
The elderly population experiences the greatest increase in deaths each winter. In the winter of
2008/09 there were 29,400 more deaths among those aged 75 and over, when compared with
levels in the non-winter period.
3.5.27
Excess winter mortality is not however, restricted to the elderly population, where of the total
36,700, there were 7,300 excess winter deaths among those under the age of 75.
3.5.28
The number of extra deaths occurring in winter varies depending on temperature, the level of
disease in the population, and other factors including affordable energy and heating and the
quality of housing. As detailed in the JSNA, increases in deaths from respiratory and circulatory
diseases are responsible for most of the excess winter mortality. Influenza is often implicated
in winter deaths as it can cause complications such as bronchitis and pneumonia, especially in
the elderly, although relatively few deaths are attributed to influenza itself.
3.5.29
As shown in Table 3.10, between 2004 and 2007 Somerset exhibited a higher level of excess
winter mortality than the national average, and a rate approaching the highest level of excess
winter mortality in England.
Table 3.10: Excess Winter Mortality (observed winter deaths minus expected deaths based on
non-winter deaths)
England
Average
Highest rate
in England
Lowest rate
in England
Local Value
Number per
Year
Somerset
17
30.3
4
22.5
384
Sedgemoor
17
30.3
4
20.9
75
West Somerset
17
30.3
4
25.3
37
Taunton Deane
17
30.3
4
25.7
92
Source: The Association of Public Health Observatories, Health Profile 2009
3.5.30
Sedgemoor, West Somerset and Taunton Deane also exhibit higher rates of excess winter
mortality than the national average. As previously discussed, such rates are influenced by age,
the existing burden of health, the relative affordability of fuel/heating and the quality of
housing.
3.5.31
Although the three immediate districts generally demonstrate health better than the national
and regional trend (higher life expectancy, lower cardiovascular and respiratory hospital
admissions), the increasingly top heavy age demographic coupled with areas of poor housing
and socio-economic deprivation is likely to remain a key contributing factor on future rates.
3.5.32
Activities that improve the availability and affordability of energy and heating, improve the
quality and energy efficiency of housing, contribute in reducing overcrowding and aid in
retaining the younger age demographic in the area will contribute in reducing such excess
mortality rates.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 25
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
h) Health Care Capacity
3.5.33
The Somerset Joint Strategic Needs Assessment sets out the current health and social care
trends in Somerset. Between 2005/6 and 2006/7 the total number of admissions was
129,209. By 2013, based upon current health care trends and population projections, the total
number of admissions is anticipated to increase by 11% to 143,519 and by 30% in 2023 to
167,380 (Ref. 6).
3.5.34
Within Somerset in 2005/06-2006/07, the highest hospital admission rates are typically
associated with high levels of deprivation, where communities that fall within the most
deprived quintile (i.e. ranked in the highest deprivation grouping out of four) exhibit a 25%
higher rate of admission than the least deprived quintile (Ref. 6).
3.5.35
As shown in Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.11, the rate of total hospital admissions and emergency
admissions in Somerset are also influenced by relative age and sex.
Figure 3.10: Somerset Total Hospital Admissions
900
Male Rate per
1000 per year
Total Ho spital Admission Rate (per 100,000)
800
Female Rate
per 1000 per
year
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35- 44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
Age Group
3.5.36
As shown above, total hospital admission for females decreases from birth, followed by a steep
increase during adolescence and the subsequent period when women are in their peak
reproductive phase. The rate of total female hospital admissions then declines, before it aligns
with the male rate at the 45 to 55 year age group. Following this, the female total hospital
admission rate exhibits a steady increase in hospital admission with age, albeit at a lower rate
then men.
3.5.37
In contrast, the male total hospital admission rate exhibits a similar decrease from birth to the
5-14 year age groups, and then exhibits a more gradual increase in admission with age.
3.5.38
Figure 3.11 presents the total emergency hospital admissions rate. As shown, there is a similar
decrease in rate for male and female from birth followed by a relatively steady rate till the 45-54
age group. Following this age group, emergency hospital admission rates significantly increase
for both male and females
26
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Figure 3.11: Somerset Emergency Hospital Admissions
500
Male Rate per 1000
per year
450
Female Rate per 1000
per year
Total Emergency Admissions (per 100,000)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0-4
5-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75-84
85+
Age Group
3.5.39
Such total and emergency hospital admission rates demonstrate that current hospital
requirements are strongly associated with child care, female health and general old age. Such
statistics further indicate that should the current trend of an increasingly top heavy age
demographic continue in Somerset (and in particular West Somerset) there is likely to be a
significant increase in local health care requirement.
3.6
Income and Employment
a) Overview
3.6.1
Income and employment influence a range of factors including access to housing, education,
goods and services, lifestyle and social networks (Ref. 3). These in turn are key determinants
for a range of physical and mental health impacts and ultimately health and well-being.
Unemployment, poverty and inequality are strongly associated with illness and premature
death (Ref. 15) (Ref. 16) (Ref. 17).
b) Deprivation
3.6.2
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007 provides an overall summary indicator of
deprivation taking into account employment, education, proximity to services, living
environment, crime and disorder and the existing burden of poor health. Average levels of
deprivation across each of the districts are indicated by their rank position relative to other
local authorities in England. Figure 3.11 provides mapping of the overall IMD in Sedgemoor,
Taunton Deane and West Somerset.
3.6.3
Applying the combined IMD 2007, West Somerset is ranked 106th out of 354 local authority
districts in England (where a rank of one indicates the most deprived district nationally).
Average levels of deprivation are lower in Sedgemoor (ranked 169th) and Taunton Deane
(ranked 204th) (Ref. 5). When compared to the previous IMD (2004), West Somerset has
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 27
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
marginally worsened (ranked 110th), whilst Sedgemoor has remained the same at 169th and
Taunton Deane has improved (ranked 188 in 2004) (Ref. 5).
3.6.4
28
Only 6% of the super output areas (SOAs) in Sedgemoor, Taunton Deane and West Somerset
are ranked in the most deprived 20% nationally on the overall IMD 2007. The IMD ranks two
SOAs in Somerset within the most deprived 10% in the country, one of these being in
Bridgwater (Bridgwater Sydenham ward) and the other in Taunton (Taunton Halcon ward).
Overall, Somerset is generally less deprived than other parts of the region and the country.
However, pockets of high deprivation do exist, and these are mainly confined to urbanised
areas.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
West Somerset
Figure 3.11: Combined Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2007)
Taunton Deane
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 29
Sedgemoor
3.6.5
Details relating to the specific indicators used in the IMD (e.g. employment, education, crime)
are discussed within the following sections of the community profile.
c) Employment
3.6.6
As shown in Table 3.11, in 2008, the largest employment sector was the public sector,
constituting a third of all employment in the local area, followed by the service sector such as
hotels and restaurants, education, health and tourism related sectors.
Table 3.11: Employment Structure by Broad Industry Sector for Immediate Districts
(Sedgemoor, Taunton Deane and West Somerset), 2008
Industry Sector
Percentage of Regional
Total Employment
Percentage in Great
Britain (%)
Manufacturing
9.36
10.2
Construction
4.31
4.8
Distribution, hotels and restaurants
28.4
23.4
Transport, storage and communication
4.1
5.8
Financial, real estate and other business
14.0
22
Public admin, education and health
31.7
27
Other service activities
4.7
5.3
Tourism related sectors
10.1
8.2
3.6.7
According to the Somerset Intelligence Network, Somerset County Council is the largest
employer in the Somerset County, employing approximately 17,000 people. Nearly 40% of the
working age population in Taunton Deane is employed in the public service sector, which can
be attributable to the town’s position as the administrative centre for Somerset. The high
dependence on the public sector throughout the region may be affected by likely future cuts in
public spending.
3.6.8
As shown in Table 3.12, employment by sector varies between the three immediate districts.
Table 3.12: Employment Structure by Broad Industry Sector for Immediate Districts, 2008
(Percentage of those employed)
30
Industry Sector
Sedgemoor
Taunton Deane
West Somerset
Manufacturing
14
6.4
7.6
Construction
4.6
4.1
3.6
Distribution, hotels and restaurants
28.8
26
38.4
Transport, storage and
communication
6.5
2.6
2.3
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.6.9
Industry Sector
Sedgemoor
Taunton Deane
West Somerset
Financial, real estate and other
business
14.8
14.9
7.3
Public admin, education and health
24.2
38.8
24.2
Other service activities
4.2
4.8
5.9
Tourism related sectors
9.8
7.2
24.9
Hinkley Point B has been in operation since 1976. The station currently employs 538 full time
British Energy/EDF Energy staff and 17 apprentices. There are also approximately 210 contract
personnel based at the power station. According to information available and given in Table
3.13, approximately 70% of Hinkley Point B employees live in the Sedgemoor District.
Table 3.13: Home Addresses of Hinkley B Employees
District
Percentage of Total Number of Hinkley B
Employees (%)
Sedgemoor
69.9
Taunton Deane
11.2
West Somerset
13.4
Sub-total
94.5
Other Somerset (Mendip and South Somerset)
1.7
West of England (South Gloucestershire and North
Somerset)
2.3
Other South West (Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire,
Wiltshire)
1.3
Other UK
0.2
No information/not known
-
Total: All Staff
100
Source: EDF Energy, Draft Socio-Economic Assessment, February 2010, p.128
3.6.10
Such statistics indicates that the existing Hinkley Point facility supports local employment in
the area.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 31
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
d) Unemployment
3.6.11
As shown in Table 3.14, unemployment rates in the local economy increased significantly in
2009 as part of the recession. The average unemployment rate in the three immediate districts
was 2.8% in June 2009. This is marginally lower than the unemployment rate for the South
West. Unemployment rates were highest in Sedgemoor at 3.2% and lowest in West Somerset at
2.1%. The higher levels of employment in West Somerset are likely to be influenced by
seasonal tourism in the district.
Table 3.14: Claimant Unemployment Rates, June 2009
Area
Claimants as a Percentage of Working Age Residents (%)
Sedgemoor
3.2
Taunton Deane
2.6
West Somerset
2.1
Average
2.8
Somerset
2.6
90 Minute Zone
2.9
South West
3.0
England
4.1
3.6.12
Although the claimant unemployment rates in Sedgemoor are higher than other local districts,
as shown in Table 3.14, a significant proportion of employees at the existing Hinkley B Power
Station live in Sedgemoor district and as such, the power station provides a positive
contribution to local employment.
3.6.13
Employment deprivation is typically concentrated in the main urban centres of Bridgwater,
Taunton and Yeovil. The type of occupation being sought by local unemployed claimants is
summarised in Table 3.15.
Table 3.15: Unemployed Claimants by Occupation Sought Relevant to the Hinkley Point C
Project, June 2009
32
Occupation
Sedgemoor, Taunton
Deane and West
Somerset
Somerset
90 Minute Commute
Zone
Engineering professionals;
science and engineering
technicians
55
125
765
Skilled mechanical trades (e.g.
welding, fitting)
50
110
485
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Occupation
Sedgemoor, Taunton
Deane and West
Somerset
Somerset
90 Minute Commute
Zone
Skilled electrical trades
55
100
575
Skilled construction trades
195
375
1,865
Skilled building trades
100
165
890
Construction operatives (semiskilled)
40
70
360
Elementary construction
occupations (unskilled)
300
550
2,290
Source: EDF Energy, Draft Socio-Economic Assessment, February 2010, p.128
3.6.14
As shown above, construction occupations are currently being sought within the three
immediate districts, Sedgemoor and within the 90 minute commute zone that could be
accommodated by the construction of the proposed development and the off-site associated
developments.
e) Income
3.6.15
Details of average weekly earnings for full time workers are provided within the socio-economic
assessment and summarised in Table 3.16.
Table 3.16: Average Weekly Earnings, 2009
Area
Mean Weekly
Earnings, WorkplaceBased (£)
Mean Weekly Earnings Residence-Based
(£)
Sedgemoor
455.6
526.8
Taunton Deane
527.2
558.7
West Somerset
618.7
531.3
Somerset
503.7
531.7
South West
535.5
545.4
England
597.4
598.3
Source: ONS 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) (4)
3.6.16
In 2009, average earnings in Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane districts were lower than the
national average. Mean weekly earnings for those working in Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane
were approximately 11% to 23% lower than the national average weekly earnings. In contrast,
gross weekly earnings for full time workers in West Somerset were 2.3% higher (c.£618 per
week) than the regional average earnings for full time workers, which is an increase from mean
weekly earnings for those working in West Somerset in 2008 (c.£571.7). However, it should be
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 33
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
noted that these figures are based on a relatively small sample and may be influenced by the
relatively higher earnings of residents employed at the existing Hinkley Point Power Stations.
3.6.17
The average earnings of those living within Sedgemoor but working outside the district are
similar to the Somerset average.
f)
Income Deprivation
3.6.18
Further to the details of average income levels given above, the IMD 2007 indicated that levels
of income deprivation in the area are generally low, although pockets of relative socio-economic
deprivation exist.
3.6.19
As shown in Figure 3.12, there are eight Super Output Areas in Sedgemoor ranked in the 20%
most income deprived nationally. These areas are predominantly concentrated in Bridgwater,
and include:
 two super output areas in the Bridgwater Hamp Ward;
 one super output areas in the Bridgwater Quantock Ward;
 three super output areas in the Bridgwater Sydenham;
 one super output areas in the Bridgwater Victoria Ward; and
 one super output areas in the Highbridge Ward.
Figure 3.12: Indices of Multiple Deprivation: Income Deprivation in Bridgwater
g) Education
3.6.20
34
The data presented in Table 3.17 relates to educational attainment in the area in 2001, and
indicates that qualifications held by working age residents in the area were typically below
regional and national averages. However, Taunton Deane exhibits a more qualified working
population than Sedgemoor and West Somerset with a higher percentage of the population
qualified at Level 4 and above than the regional average.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table 3.17: Qualifications of Working Age Residents, 2001
3.6.21
Area
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Qualified at Level Qualified at Level Level 4+
2+
3+
Sedgemoor
46.2
22.8
15.6
Taunton Deane
53.8
28.7
20.3
West Somerset
48.0
23.7
16.3
Average
49.7
25.5
17.7
Somerset
50.4
26.1
18.2
90 Minute Zone
53.7
31.1
21.0
South West
52.8
29.5
19.8
England
51.7
30.6
21.2
Qualified
at
Table 3.18 indicates qualifications obtained by working age residents in 2008. Similar to
regional and national trends, educational attainment improved in all areas. However, the
qualifications of residents in Sedgemoor and West Somerset remain lower than regional trends.
Table 3.18: Qualifications of Working Age Residents, 2008
Area
Percentage Qualified at:
Level 2+
Level 3+
Level 4+
Sedgemoor
63.4
44.4
24.8
Taunton Deane
72.2
51.4
31.2
West Somerset
62.6
43.2
22.8
Average
67.1
47.3
27.3
Somerset
68.4
47.5
24.9
90 Minute Zone
68.5
49.7
29.2
South West
68.1
48.8
28.3
England
64.6
46.5
28.7
Source: Office for National Statistics, Annual Population Survey (4)
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 35
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
h) Educational Attainment of School Leavers
3.6.22
Data for GCSE attainment from 2007/2008 indicates that attainment levels in Sedgemoor and
West Somerset and for Somerset as a whole are lower than the regional and national average.
In 2008, the proportion of pupils gaining 5 GCSE passes at grades A*-C was 52.7% in
Sedgemoor and 56% in West Somerset compared to the regional average of 63.5% and
national average of 64.5%. In comparison, GCSE attainment levels were higher in Taunton
Deane with 65.4% of pupils gaining 5+ A*-C passes.
i)
Education and Skills Deprivation
3.6.23
A low skilled working age population has been identified as an issue within Sedgemoor and
West Somerset. In 2006-2007, 66% of 19 year olds in West Somerset were qualified at NVQ
Level 2 compared to regional and national averages of 76% and 74% respectively. The level of
qualifications are marginally better in Sedgemoor at 70%, however, this is still below regional
and national trends.
3.6.24
There are also pockets of high deprivation in terms of low education attainment and skills,
particularly in the Bridgwater and Highbridge areas of Sedgemoor, which is highlighted by 16%
of Super Output Areas (SOA) within the district being ranked in the most deprived 20%
nationally on the skills sub-domain.
Figure 3.13: IMD Education Deprivation (2007)
Sedgemoor
West Somerset
Taunton Deane
36
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.6.25
3.6.26
Such pockets of low education attainment correlate with areas exhibiting socio-economic
deprivation and a higher burden of poor health.
Improving the local skills, qualifications and earning potential in Sedgemoor is a key Local Area
Agreement (LAA) target, intended to aid in addressing socio-economic deprivation and
associated inequality (Ref. 6).
j)
3.6.27
Housing Stock
The housing stock in the Taunton Market Area (HMA), which comprises the Sedgemoor, Taunton
Deane and West Somerset districts, was approximately 113,000 in March 2007. Housing in this
area increased by an estimated 6,450 dwellings between 2001 and 2007, representing a 6%
increase. This is higher than both the regional and national housing growth trends.
Table 3.19: Growth in Housing Stock in Immediate Districts, 2001-2007
Area
Dwelling Stock, March
2001
Dwelling Stock,
March 2007
% Growth, 2001-2007
Sedgemoor
45,622
48,685
6.7%
Taunton Deane
44,531
47,172
5.9%
West Somerset
16,381
17,120
4.5%
Sub-total
106,534
112,977
6.0%
Somerset
216,644
230,027
6.2%
South West
2,174,292
2,301,801
5.9%
England
21,296,187
22,289,256
4.7%
Source: EDF Energy, Draft Socio-Economic Assessment, February 2010, p.58
k) Housing Tenure
3.6.28
Survey-based estimates of the tenure of the local housing stock are available from the Taunton
and South Somerset Strategic Housing Market Assessment (HMA) (Fordham Research, 2008).
The survey results suggest that owner occupied properties account for approximately 75% of
the current housing stock in the Taunton HMA. Social housing accounts for an estimated 14%
of housing stock, with private rented housing making up 11%.
Table 3.20: Estimated Tenure of Local Housing Stock, 2008
Area
Owner Occupied
Social Rented
Private Rented
Sedgemoor
37,469
5,941
4,689
Taunton Deane
36,164
7,913
5,522
West Somerset
11,999
2,254
2,148
Sub-total
85,632
16,108
12,359
Sedgemoor
77.9%
12.4%
9.7%
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 37
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Area
Owner Occupied
Social Rented
Private Rented
Taunton Deane
72.9%
16.0%
11.1%
West Somerset
73.2%
13.7%
13.1%
Total: Taunton HMA
75.1%
14.1%
10.8%
Source: EDF Energy, Draft Socio-Economic Assessment, February 2010, p.59
l)
3.6.29
Housing Affordability
Baseline data on house prices and affordability for 2008 is provided in the socio-economic
assessment and summarised in Table 3.21. This shows that house prices in Sedgemoor and
Taunton Deane are a respective 12% and 4% below the national average. In contrast, in 2008,
property prices in West Somerset were 17% above the national average. Such an increase is
understood to be influenced by the purchase of second homes in the area by those of
retirement age and originating from areas with far higher house prices (typically London and the
South-East region), which at 6.28% (in 2007) is far higher than the regional and national trend.
The influx of second homeowners into the area has in many cases led to the pricing out of local
residents from the housing market.
Table 3.21: Property Sales, House Prices and Affordability, 2008
Area
Mean House Price House Price/Earnings Number
(£)
Ratio
Sales
Sedgemoor
194,243
8.23
1,469
Taunton Deane
212,055
9.62
1,243
West Somerset
258,221
10.78
443
Somerset
211,743
8.82
6,437
South West
222,704
8.77
67,430
England
220,310
6.98
609,840
of
Property
Source: EDF Energy, Draft Socio-Economic Assessment, February 2010, p.60
3.6.30
Affordable housing has been identified as a key priority by West Somerset Council as part of the
Council’s Corporate Plan (West Somerset Annual Monitoring Report 2008-2009). Higher than
average house prices are thought to have contributed to the significant outward migration of
persons between 19-34 years who are not able to secure affordable housing and employment in
the District.
m) Housing Deprivation
3.6.31
38
According to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2007), 61% of the SOAs in West Somerset
are ranked in the most deprived 20% nationally in relation to barriers to housing and services.
These higher levels of deprivation are in part due to the rural setting of West Somerset, which
means that services are typically less accessible and concentrated in urban areas.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.7
Lifestyle
a) Overview
3.7.1
Differences in lifestyle choices made by individuals are typically influenced by education,
employment and socio-economic background. It is also acknowledged that these differences in
lifestyle choices significantly influence health inequalities experienced by a community. A
number of lifestyle indicators for the immediate area to the development are discussed below.
b) Alcohol Consumption
3.7.2
As defined in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (Ref. 6), over 15% of the adult population in
Somerset regularly binge drink. Binge drinking activity was found to been higher in and around
town centres yet significantly lower in West Somerset. Statistics comparing alcohol
consumption on a spatial basis suggest that binge-drinking on a local level is lower than
national trends.
3.7.3
Reported levels of harmful and hazardous drinking in Somerset are lower than the regional
average. However, there is still concern that approximately 19% adults drink at harmful levels
(between 22 and 50 units a week for men, and 15 and 35 for women) and 4% at hazardous
levels (50 units a week for men, 35 units a week for women) (Ref. 6).
3.7.4
Between 2003/04 and 2007/08, the directly standardised rate per 100,000 population for
hospital admissions attributable to alcohol have been consistently higher in West Somerset
and Taunton Deane than Sedgemoor. Reduced rates of hospital admissions related to alcohol
were observed in 2007/08 for males and females (Ref. 6).
3.7.5
Quarterly annual data available for alcohol related hospital admissions indicate that there is no
increase in the number of alcohol related admissions on a seasonal basis that would be
attributable to tourism in the area.
3.7.6
Furthermore, it has been identified that there are inequalities in alcohol related health in the
south west, which is consistent with national trends. The rate of alcohol specific hospital
admissions is five times higher among adults from the most deprived areas when compared to
the most affluent (Ref. 6).
c) Smoking
3.7.7
Smoking is responsible for one-sixth of all deaths in the UK, and kills half of all those who
smoke. It is the area where behaviour change would make the greatest impact on health
inequalities, as it is the main cause of differences in death rates in middle age persons across
socio-economic groups.
3.7.8
According to the NHS 2009 Health Profiles, based on 2003-2005 modelled estimates, 18.9% to
21.3% of residents smoke within the three immediate districts, with Taunton Deane District
having the highest proportion. Estimates of both smoking prevalence and deaths from
circumstances related to smoking are lower in Somerset than for the country overall. Within
Somerset, smoking prevalence varies geographically, with smoking rates typically higher
amongst communities experiencing relative socio-economic deprivation (Ref 6).
3.7.9
Data from the Somerset Annual Public Health Report 2008/09 indicates that 17% of mothers
smoked during pregnancy in Somerset. This is higher than both regional and national trends.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 39
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
d) Physical Activity
3.7.10
3.7.11
Physical activity improves physical and mental health, and can be applied to increase social
networks improving social cohesion. There is significant evidence to support the benefits of
physical activity in promoting good health and contributing towards a decreased risk of
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and some cancers.
As shown in Table 3.22, levels of physical activity in the region are low for both adults and
children. The Active People’s Survey (2006) indicated that in Somerset, 21.8% of adults took
part in at least three sessions of physical activity per week. However, half of adults in Somerset
stated that they participated in no regular activity (Ref. 6).
Table 3.22: Physical Activity Participation (expressed as a percentage of the population, %)
Sedgemoor
Taunton
Deane
West
Somerset
Somerset
South
West
England
Participation
At least 3
days a week
22.9
21.3
22.0
21.8
21.9
21.0
0 days per
week
53.1
48.7
54.8
51.4
49.2
50.6
Source: The Active People’s Survey (2006)
e) Obesity
3.7.12
Obesity is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, osteoarthritis
and cancer. Data shows that rates of obesity in the UK are rapidly increasing. In 2007, 24% of
men and women were classed as obese and it is predicted that by 2050 over half of the UK
adult population could be obese (Ref. 18).
3.7.13
Model based estimates suggest that Sedgemoor, Taunton Deane and West Somerset districts
exhibit similar rates of adult obesity to national trends (24.6%, 22.6% and 24.4% respectively)
(DH 2009). However, these estimates are lower than rates for Somerset overall, where 34.7% of
adults are overweight and 13.5% are classed as obese (Ref. 6).
3.7.14
The prevalence of overweight and obesity in children is also an increasing concern nationally.
Local data on childhood obesity collected as part of the National Child Measurement
Programme indicates that 8% of children in the reception year at school and 15.2% of children
in year 6 in Somerset were defined as obese. Local rates of overweight and obesity exhibited in
children are typically lower than the national trend.
f)
Teenage Pregnancy
3.7.15
Somerset has lower rates of teenage pregnancy compared to the national trend. Somerset’s
target is to reduce the rate of under-18 conceptions by 50% by 2010. Following a downward
trend in conception rates since the 1998 baseline year, there was an increase in the 2006 and
2007 rates, which followed national trends (NHS Somerset, 2009).
3.7.16
The target rate for 2010 is 19.4 per 1,000 females of the population. In 2007, the conception
rate for under-18 in Somerset was 35.8 per 1,000 females of the population, consistent with the
regional trend yet lower than the national trend (36 per 1,000 and 41.7 per 1,000 respectively)
(Ref. 19).
40
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.7.17
Data indicates that Sedgemoor (-28.5%) and West Somerset (-35.1%) had made the most
progress in reducing teenage pregnancy rates, while teenage pregnancy rates in the Taunton
Deane area have only marginally reduced (-5%) (NHS Somerset 2009).
3.7.18
There is a strong link between deprivation and high rates of teenage pregnancy, with those
living in the 20% most deprived areas displaying a conception rate nearly 5 times higher than
those in the 20% least-deprived areas.
3.7.19
The data for under 18 year olds terminating pregnancy shows that Somerset has one of the
lowest rates nationally, and it is declining (14 per 1,000 15-17 year olds in 2007, contrasted
against 15 per 1,000 in 2006).
g) Sexual Health
3.7.20
The numbers of people with HIV in Somerset remains relatively low in comparison to most other
areas. However, these numbers continue to increase year on year, with increases being
significant relative to the low prevalence. HIV contracted through men who have sex with men
remains the main route of transmission overall, but the largest increases have occurred through
heterosexual sexual transmission. A sizeable proportion of newly diagnosed HIV in Somerset
has been amongst immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe (Ref. 6).
3.7.21
Other sexually transmitted infections are continuing to increase in line with the rest of the UK,
with particular concern for chlamydia, which has seen an increase of 200% over the last two
years particularly amongst young people (Ref. 6).
h) Mental Health
3.7.22
Mental health is affected by a wide range of factors that can prevent or lead to an increased risk
of mental illness. These include ‘lifestyle’ factors such as physical activity, alcohol
consumption and healthy eating. Other factors include employment, education and access to
support and social networks (Ref. 6).
3.7.23
Relatively little information regarding mental health in Somerset is available. Data available for
the Southwest region suggests that approximately 11.5% of adults may have a mental health
problem at any one time, and approximately 7.4% of adults will have a significant mental
health problem that is likely to require treatment. These levels of mental health illness are
similar to national trend (13.2% and 7.3% respectively).
3.7.24
The Somerset JSNA (Ref. 6) draws on the findings of modelling based on the 1993 National
Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. This indicates where in Somerset common mild to moderate
mental illness may be more prevalent. The following wards in Sedgemoor and West Somerset
fall within the 6th decile and above for predicted rates of common mild to moderate mental
health conditions (a decile is a rating of performance on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is best, 10 is
worst):
 Bridgwater Eastover;
 Bridgwater Hamp;
 Bridgwater Sydenam;
 Bridgwater Victoria;
 Highbridge;
 Alcombe East;
 Dunster;
 Minehead North; and
 Watchet.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 41
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
3.7.25
A number of these wards have been identified as being potentially susceptible to a number of
health issues due to social and lifestyle factors, and may require additional information to
address health concerns and perceived risks more effectively.
i)
Crime and Antisocial Behaviour
3.7.26
Based on recorded crime comparator offences in the British Crime Survey (BCS), the local area
experiences relatively low levels of crime and disorder compared to the national average.
3.7.27
Crime statistics available indicate that for the Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane districts in
2008/09, rates of violent crime (against a person) were 14 per 1,000 population, which is lower
than national trends (16 per 1,000 population). However, both districts have experienced an
increase in the rate of violent crime compared to recorded offences in 2007/08 (12% and 3%
increase respectively). In contrast, West Somerset exhibited a lower rate for violent crimes
against a person of 10 per 1,000 population. The IMD 2007 demonstrates that levels of crime
are very low throughout the three immediate districts.
3.8
Community Profile Summary
3.8.1
Somerset exhibits a growing yet relatively mature population, where statistics indicate that
populations within Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane are growing at a rate higher than the
national average. In contrast, population growth within West Somerset is significantly lower,
and exhibits an increasingly top heavy age demographic as a consequence of outward
migration. Such migration is understood to be due to a combination of factors including
seeking higher education, a lack of affordable housing and relatively low earning potential.
3.8.2
Despite the ageing population in the area, the health of people in Somerset is generally better
than the England average and is improving, exhibiting higher life expectancies, lower mortality
rates and lower rates of premature mortality from heart disease, stroke and cancer.
3.8.3
Localised areas of health deprivation within Somerset are largely concentrated within urban
areas, and closely associated with pockets of relative socio-economic deprivation, poor
lifestyles and risk taking behaviour. Sexual health and teenage pregnancy rates in Somerset
are better than the national average, yet remain a key focus for the PCT, with a number of
programmes to raise awareness, reduce prevalence and improve treatment of sexually
transmitted infections. Excess winter mortality remains a key issue throughout Somerset,
requiring a coordinated approach to reduce and remove contributing risk factors such as poor
quality housing, affordable energy and fuel and general community support for those most at
risk (the elderly and socio-economically deprived).
3.8.4
Income, employment and education deprivation remain key issues in the area, and are closely
associated with localised pockets of socio-economic and health deprivation.
Such
communities are predominantly concentrated within Bridgwater, including:
 Bridgwater Hamp;
 Bridgwater Quantock;
 Bridgwater Sydenham;
 Bridgwater Victoria; and
 Highbridge.
3.8.5
Although local circumstance and health is generally better than the national average and
improving throughout Somerset, there remain pockets of socio-economic deprivation and
burdens of poor health that make specific communities sensitive to changes in environmental
and socio-economic conditions. Areas exhibiting high burdens of poor health are more at risk
from factors that may exacerbate existing conditions. As such, the assessment section of this
42
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
HIA will consider the highest burdens of poor health to ensure a conservative approach and the
assessment of a worst-case scenario.
3.8.6
It is also important to note that local communities are particularly sensitive to activities that
may change their socio-economic circumstance and lifestyles. Projects that may reduce or
impact upon local income and employment run the risk of further compounding the
predominant cause for patterns of existing poor health in Somerset. However, it is also
important to note that local communities are also sensitive to any activity that may improve
local socio-economic status (through increased education, employment, income) and lifestyles
(such as improved social networks, social capital, improved diet and physical activity). The
following assessment section and subsequent Health Action Plan will therefore investigate
potential health benefits and necessary initiatives to improve the uptake of such benefit locally.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 43
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
4
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
4.1
Overview
4.1.1
As discussed in Section 1.57, an important component of gathering an appropriate evidence
base and tailoring the HIA to local circumstance is seeking the views of stakeholders and key
representatives of communities likely to be affected. In this instance, a significant level of preapplication consultation has already been undertaken by EDF Energy. The HIA has therefore
implemented a tiered approach, building upon existing community consultation supplemented
with specific engagement with appropriate community representatives and individuals
responsible for maintaining local community health.
4.1.2
This section provides an overview of the stakeholder engagement strategy and summarises the
key outputs gained to further refine the focus of the HIA and the recommendations within the
Health Action Plan.
4.2
Engagement Strategy
4.2.1
As previously discussed, the scope and focus of the HIA was primarily established through a
review of the health issues raised during previous stakeholder and community engagement,
including:



4.2.2
a review of earlier Hinkley Point C projects, notably the Michael Barnes QC Public Inquiry
1987;
a review of the Stage 1 consultation outputs; and
a review of previous Community Forum Meeting Minutes.
Such information provided the basis to developing a HIA scoping report, cataloguing a range of
health issues and opportunities to be addressed through the HIA (Appendix A). The HIA
scoping report was initially distributed to the full Environmental Appraisal Team and key
stakeholders, including but not limited to:




Somerset County Council;
Sedgemoor District Council;
West Somerset Council; and
Taunton Deane Borough Council.
4.2.3
To facilitate returns, and to gain additional input in defining sensitive community groups, the
four Local Authorities and their technical representatives were offered the opportunity of more
detailed telephone interviews, alongside interviews with Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT) and
the South West Public Health Observatory (SWPHO) (for copies of the workshop transcripts,
correspondence and supporting information from key stakeholders, please refer to Appendix B).
4.2.4
In so doing, the scope and focus of the HIA has benefited from a broad range of community and
key stakeholder input to define the scope and focus of the assessment, and to support more
effective community support initiatives.
44
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
a) Stakeholder Engagement Results
4.2.5
The structure of each engagement session comprised the following key tasks:



4.2.6
Task 1: discuss and prioritise potential health pathways (both adverse and beneficial);
Task 2: discuss local community circumstance, sensitivities and concerns; and
Task 3: discuss potential measures and initiatives to further reduce risk, address
community concerns and improve local health.
In so doing, it was possible to provide a consistent means to discussing, grouping and
prioritising community health issues and opportunities. The combined engagement outputs are
summarised in Table 4.1 below (full transcripts are provided in Appendix B).
Table 4.1: Stakeholder Engagement Results
Health
Pathway
Summary of Stakeholder Comments
Construction
Construction
Workforce
The introduction of a large mobile workforce has the potential to:
 change local demographic, ethnic and socio-cultural structure resulting in
disruption and increased pressure on local services and amenities (including
education, recreation, entertainment and health care);
 influence communicable disease risk; and
 have implications for poor integration with local communities and represents a
potential risk of antisocial behaviour.
The construction phase has the potential to generate significant local direct, indirect
and induced income and employment opportunities. Such opportunities should be
optimised to address relative deprivation and local health inequalities.
Increased demand for local and regional construction workers at Hinkley Point C,
may result in a decreased availability for other regeneration and development
projects in the area.
The introduction of a large construction workforce has the potential to increase
housing demand, temporarily reducing local community access to housing, and in
particular access to good and affordable housing.
Transport,
Access and
Accessibility
Construction traffic (Heavy Goods Vehicles and staff movements) has the potential
to increase congestion, noise and air pollution, risk of collision and general
community severance.
The provision of new transport and road safety infrastructure has the potential to
manage such risks and disruption, and may also improve the viability and uptake of
public and green transport options in the area (with associated health and legacy
benefits).
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 45
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Health
Pathway
Summary of Stakeholder Comments
Construction
Emissions (on
site and at offsite associated
developments)
The construction phase (and associated construction traffic) has the potential to
impact upon the local environment, influencing the level of community exposure to
noise and vibration, emissions to air and general disruption, representing a
potential acute and chronic risk to health.
Cumulative risk
The cumulative impacts between Hinkley A, B and C are a local concern and need to
be investigated, as do the cumulative impacts between the various off-site
developments.
Occupational
Health and
Safety
Despite occupational health and safety procedures and best practice, construction
sites remain hazardous work environments. Although typically beyond the remit of
HIA, it is recommended to establish the health and safety procedures EDF Energy
will implement.
Health
promotion
Participants indicated that the proposed development has the potential to support
local health promotion, and recommended that the HIA investigate such
opportunities. In particular, participants requested the HIA to investigate:
 how the proposed facility might impact upon areas of and access to green space
and recreation facilities during construction and operation; and
 whether the proposed development would increase or enhance areas of and
access to green space and recreational facilities (with subsequent mental,
physical and social health benefits).
Operation
Radiological
The potential change in radiological exposure and subsequent risk to health
remains a key local and regional concern.
The radiological assessment will prove useful in further addressing local community
health concerns and alleviating stress and anxiety.
46
Electro Magnetic
Fields and
Interference (EMF
and EMI)
Council Technical Advisors have expressed concern regarding the potential change
in EMF exposure and subsequent risk to health. Potential EMI impacts were also
raised. It is recommended the HIA address such concerns to manage perceived
risks and alleviate local stress and anxiety.
Visual impacts
Participants expressed that the proposed facility may impact on amenity value and
use.
Community
severance,
access and
accessibility
Participants inquired as to the loss of any pedestrian or cycle routes surrounding the
facility and any subsequent impact on access to areas of green space, amenities,
facilities and social networks.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
4.2.7
Health
Pathway
Summary of Stakeholder Comments
Legacy
opportunities
The off-site associated developments represent legacy benefits to local
communities in terms of potential infrastructure and supporting recreational and
leisure facilities. They have the potential to improve the quality, affordability and
stock of housing in the area and can also be applied to encouraging improvements
in lifestyle (namely increased physical activity). Such opportunities will need to be
further investigated and barriers to health benefits addressed.
Perceived Risks
Participants indicated that once operational, the priority community and interest
group concern is that of the potential radiological risk. The HIA is required to
address such concerns and where appropriate generate materials to more
effectively address them
As shown above, the health pathways identified and discussed with stakeholders are in
keeping with those identified in the HIA scoping report, where key construction health issues
include:



the potential disruption and opportunities associated with the requirement for a large
construction workforce, including:
o the potential transport impact and disruption to local communities from construction
vehicles and staff;
o the potential increase in service and housing demand; and
o the potential for local direct, indirect and induced income and employment.
the potential environmental impact and community disruption during the construction
phase; and
opportunities to address existing pockets of deprivation, support local regeneration and
health initiatives.
4.2.8
During operation, key health issues discussed included the potential risk from radiological and
electro magnetic exposure, visual impacts and the potential impact upon access and
accessibility.
4.2.9
Key health benefits discussed included the potential legacy opportunities associated with the
off-site associated developments, including:




the infrastructure they will provide;
the viability of supporting services and amenities (including more viable public transport
through increased patronage);
the training and employment they will facilitate; and
improved pedestrian and cycling facilities, influencing lifestyle and improving access and
accessibility.
4.2.10
The engagement stage also established that the HIA is not only necessary to inform the
planning and decision making process, but will be key in addressing local community health
concerns, and to support the uptake of local health benefits.
4.2.11
Such issues and opportunities have been applied to further inform and refine the following
assessment stage and the final Health Action Plan.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 47
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5
ASSESSMENT
5.1
Overview
5.1.1
The following assessment investigates each of the previously identified potential health
pathways associated with the construction and operation of the proposed development,
including the off-site associated developments, covering:









5.2
the potential health risk from changes in radiological exposure;
the potential health risk from changes in electromagnetic field exposure;
the potential health risk from changes in emissions to air (construction, traffic emissions
and back up diesel generators);
the potential health risk from additional road movements (risk of accident and injury);
the potential community disruption from construction noise impacts;
the potential social impact from the introduction of a temporary non-home-based
construction workforce;
the potential community health benefits from planning legacy (facilities, amenities and
community support initiatives);
the potential socio-economic health benefits from direct, indirect and induced income and
employment; and
the potential change in health need from a temporary non-home-based construction and
maintenance workforce.
Potential Health Risk from Radiological Exposure
a) Overview
5.2.1
As part of the HIA, EDF Energy commissioned RPS to undertake a detailed radiological
assessment and develop a supporting evidence base to investigate potential health risks and
provide the basis to more effectively manage community concerns. This section provides a
brief introduction to the base principles of radiation and health risks, the methodology applied
and the radiological assessment conclusions. Appendix C provides the full methodology, the
supporting evidence base and all of the assumptions applied.
b) Radiation and Health
5.2.2
Radiation describes any process in which energy travels through a medium, other than by
conduction, or through space. There are two broad classes of radiation: ionizing radiation
which comes from radioactive materials (i.e. materials that emit radiation), x-ray machines and
non-ionizing radiation (usually electromagnetic radiation) which comes from other sources.
This section concentrates on ionising radiation.
5.2.3
Both the beneficial uses of radioactive properties and the harmful effects of radiation are well
documented. This section sets out to introduce some of the concepts necessary to determining
potential health impacts in the context of an application to build a new nuclear power station in
a specific locality.
48
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.4
There are several types of ionising radiation:





X-rays and gamma rays have great penetrating power and can pass through the human
body;
Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons, in the form of atomic nuclei and
travel only a short distance;
Beta particles are fast-moving electrons ejected from the nuclei of many kinds of atoms and
are marginally more penetrating than alpha-particles;
Cosmic radiation consists of very energetic particles, mostly protons, which bombard the
earth from outer space; and
Neutrons are particles which are also very penetrating. They mostly come from the splitting,
or fissioning, of certain atoms inside a nuclear reactor.
5.2.5
Since radioactivity was discovered more than 100 years ago it has been the subject of much
study. In addition to naturally occurring radioactive materials, sources of radioactivity in the
environment include those arising from man-made applications. Such sources include atomic
weapons testing, nuclear power generation and associated fuel cycle activities, industrial use
and medical applications.
5.2.6
The property of radioactivity is measured in units of becquerels (Bq), where 1 Bq represents one
atomic decay occurring per second. The unit for measuring the energy deposited in matter by
radiation (the ‘absorbed dose’) is the gray (Gy), which is an expression of energy per unit mass
(joules per kilogram). However the usual unit for expressing the dose of radiation received
relevant to its effect on people, is the sievert (Sv), although it is more common to use units of
milliSv (mSv), which is one-thousandth of a Sv (10-3 Sv), or microSv (μSv), which is one
millionth of a Sv (10-6 Sv).
5.2.7
The Sv is the SI derived unit of dose equivalent. It attempts to reflect the biological effects of
radiation as opposed to the physical aspects, which are characterised by the absorbed dose,
measured in gray. Thus, one mSv of radiation has the same biological effect on people
irrespective of whether the originating radiation is alpha, beta or gamma.
5.2.8
In addition to the above, radiation exposure may be expressed in terms of the effective dose,
which is the tissue-weighted sum of equivalent doses and is used to compare the absorbed
doses of radiation received from different radiations by different tissues. For internal
exposures, it is also conventional to consider the continuing, or ‘committed’, dose which will
occur as a result of the residence time for which a radionuclide may be present within the body.
In all cases, the unit for expressing radiation exposure is the Sv, and the type of dose is then
qualified by stating that it refers to an ‘organ dose’, ‘committed effective dose’ or other
description.
5.2.9
In this document, unless explicitly stated otherwise, we use the term ‘dose’ to describe the
committed effective dose to the whole body.
c) Regulation of the Nuclear Industry
5.2.10
The Treaty of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) gave the European
Community the task of establishing uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers
and the general public in all Member States. In 1996 the European Council issued Directive
96/29/EURATOM, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
and the general public from exposure to ionising radiation. This Directive took account of the
recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Ref. 20), and the
Directive has been enshrined in UK legislation. The system of protection recommended by the
ICRP for practices involving radioactive substances is based on the principles of:
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 49
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL



5.2.11
justification of a practice;
optimisation of protection; and
the application of individual dose and risk limits.
Justification aims to ensure that no practice is adopted which involves exposure to ionising
radiation unless it produces a net benefit to the exposed individuals, or to society as a whole.
The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations [21] transpose into UK law
the justification requirements of two European Directives, which protect the health of
individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation:


Council Directive 96/26/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards to
protect the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from
ionising radiation; and
Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals
against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing
Directive 84/466/Euratom.
5.2.12
Under these Directives, it is a particular class or type of practice needs to be justified, not
individual uses of that practice. For new classes or types of practice (i.e. those which are
undertaken for the first time after the 1996 Directive came into force on 13 May 2000),
justification is required before they are first adopted.
5.2.13
A generic justification for building new nuclear power stations has been submitted by the
Nuclear Industry Association (Ref. 22). Justification is not further addressed within this Health
Impact Appraisal.
5.2.14
Optimisation is the process whereby an operator selects the technical or management option
that best meets the full range of relevant health, safety, environmental and security objectives,
taking into account factors such as social and economic considerations. Optimisation is a
requirement laid on permit holders by the relevant regulatory body, through the requirement to
demonstrate that discharges and resultant doses are ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’
(ALARP). Different regimes in the field of radiological protection use different terminology (for
instance, the application of Best Available Techniques – BAT – in England and Wales, or Best
Practicable Means – BPM – in Scotland and Northern Ireland) and have their own guidance on
this topic, but they all involve making a judgement between options by comparing benefits in
terms of safety, environmental protection etc, and costs in terms of time, effort or money. The
Environment Agency (Ref.23) has recently issued guidance on optimisation and radioactive
substances regulation for the management and disposal of radioactive wastes. All exposures
should be constrained to minimise inequalities arising from risks to any individual or part of
society.
5.2.15
The outcome of any optimisation programme cannot be presupposed, as it will depend on a
number of local factors, together with national and international developments. Nonetheless,
the current operation of existing nuclear power stations can be used to give a broad indication
of likely impacts from new build stations, as the requirements for optimisation apply both to
existing and new build stations. Further reference will be made to this in the assessment of
potential health impacts.
5.2.16
Limitation provides a mechanism of dose limits which ensure that no individual shall be
exposed to ionising radiation leading to an unacceptable risk under normal circumstances.
50
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.17
The principles of radiological protection which are applied to licensed activities are based on
the limitation of incremental exposures of radiation; that is, the limit is applied over and above
any radiation dose which may arise naturally. In the UK an average naturally occurring radiation
dose to an individual is around 2.2 mSv per year (Ref. 24), although there is considerable
variability around this average depending on the part of the country, the type of building
material and other factors such as ventilation. The dose limit applied to nuclear licensed
activities is the same irrespective of whether the actual natural background dose is, for
example, 1 mSv per year or 3 mSv per year.
5.2.18
The dose limit for members of the public in the UK is 1 mSv per year and no nuclear licensed
activity is permitted to give rise to discharges which would cause exceedence of this limit. The
dose limit applies to the sum of all current and past practices or activities, excluding medical
exposure.
5.2.19
Where there are multiple sites in close proximity, it is important to ensure that the overall dose
to members of the public remains below the dose limit of 1 mSv per year. Accordingly, advice
from the Health Protection Agency (Ref. 25), and the Health and Safety Executive (Ref. 26), is
that a dose of 0.5 mSv (500 μSv) per year is applied as a constraint on optimisation for a single
site and a dose of 0.3 mSv (300 μSv) per year is applied as a constraint on optimisation for a
single new source.
5.2.20
For public exposure, the dose constraint is an upper bound on the annual doses that members
of the public should receive from the planned operation of any controlled source. The dose
constraint places a restriction on the annual dose to an individual from a particular source in
order to ensure that when aggregated with doses from all sources, excluding natural
background and medical procedures, the dose limit is not exceeded.
5.2.21
There is no lower limit on doses below which the general requirement for optimisation does not
apply. DECC and the Welsh Assembly Government (Ref. 27) have issued Statutory Guidance to
the Environment Agency for England and Wales which includes the provision that:
“where the prospective dose to the most exposed group of members of the public is below
10 μSv/y from overall discharges …the Environment Agency should not seek to reduce
further the discharge limits in place, provided that the holder of the authorisation applies
and continues to apply Best Available Techniques”.
5.2.22
In this report, the radiological impacts on the most exposed members of the public are
assessed against a set of UK dose limits, constraints and guidelines derived from International
and European regulations and guidance that were used to develop significance criteria, as
follows in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: UK Dose Limits, Constraints and Guidelines Derived from International and European
Regulations and Guidance
Dose Band
Source of the Dose Criterion Used in the
Assessment
Significance
0.5 to 1.0 mSv y-1
1.0 mSv y-1 is the UK public dose limit.
0.5 mSv y-1 is the site dose constraint.
‘Major’
0.15 to 0.5 mSv y-1
0.5 mSv y-1 is the site dose constraint.
0.15 mSv y-1 follows the Health Protection Agency
proposed advice concerning a dose constraint for
members of the public for new nuclear power
stations and waste disposal facilities.
‘Moderate’
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 51
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Dose Band
Source of the Dose Criterion Used in the
Assessment
Significance
0.01 to 0.15 mSv y-1
0.15 mSv y-1 (as above).
‘Minor’
-1
0.01 mSv y follows guidance issued to the
Environment Agency for England and Wales, below
which regulators should not seek further
reductions in public dose, provided the operator
is using best available techniques to limit
discharges.
Less than 0.01 mSv y-1
5.2.23
0.01 mSv y-1 (as above).
‘Negligible’
Advice regarding the use of the 10 μSv per year (0.01 mSv per year) criterion is relatively recent;
older documents and assessment statements will necessarily make comparison to a 20 μSv per
year criterion. In the current report reference is made to 10/20 μSv per year as the appropriate
criterion for determining the need for further action since, in either case, the requirement to use
the Best Available Techniques continues to apply.
d) Determining Radiological Doses to Members of the Public
5.2.24
The potential routes by which people could be exposed to radiation, and hence receive a
radiation dose, are:


external radiation from certain types of radioactive materials, which could affect people in
close proximity; and
internal radiation from radioactive materials that, once released, are in a form that means
they could be inhaled or could enter the food chain.
5.2.25
For existing power stations or other nuclear licensed sites, the determination of potential doses
to members of the public is generally based on measurement of concentrations of radioactive
materials in the environment, observation of habits such as time spent in specified areas or
amounts and types of foods consumed, and internationally recognised dose coefficients (in
turn drawn from studies conducted over many years). In some cases, doses may be estimated
based on potential discharges (for instance, to investigate ‘what if’ scenarios such as the
impact arising if discharges were to be increased up to their authorised limits).
5.2.26
For prospective assessments, such as that required for the proposed development of Hinkley
Point C, it is necessary to model potential discharges and environmental concentrations and to
make assumptions regarding the habits of individuals who may receive a radiation dose as a
result of discharges to the environment. It is conventional to define a set of characteristics for a
hypothetical group of people whose habits would result in their being the most exposed to any
radioactive discharges from the site. The hypothetical group of people following these habits
has been termed the “critical group”. This approach continues to be endorsed by the
International Commission for Radiation Protection (Ref. 28), although the term “representative
person” is now used in place of ‘critical group’ to avoid any potential misunderstanding arising
from the terminology.
5.2.27
In the case of a new build power station at Hinkley Point C, known discharges and associated
environmental measurements conducted over many years for existing and previous nuclear
power stations operating at Hinkley Point A and B, Oldbury and Berkeley, provide a basis to
validate predictive models. In addition, characteristics used to define the hypothetical ‘critical
group’ can be based on observed habits for existing and nearby communities.
52
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.28
In order to determine the dose to a person following intake of materials containing radioactive
substances, dose coefficients (that is, the whole body committed effective dose to a person per
unit intake by inhalation or ingestion of specific radionuclides) are taken from the latest
recommendations of the ICRP (Ref. 29).
e) Relationship between Dose and Health Effects
i)
Doses to Individuals
5.2.29
Exposure to ionising radiation gives rise to two types of health effects: deterministic effects,
where the severity of the effect increases with dose, and stochastic effects, where the likelihood
but not the severity of the impact occurring is proportional to the dose received. Deterministic
effects occur only above certain threshold doses. Stochastic effects are thought to be effects
for which there is no dose threshold.
5.2.30
It has been outlined that radiological protection in the UK is based on the concepts of
justification, optimisation and limitation. The committed effective dose limit of 1 mSv per year
set for members of the public is designed to prevent all deterministic effects (or ‘tissue
reactions’).
5.2.31
For completeness, it is noted that effective dose limits for organs are laid down in UK
legislation. For members of the public these are:


50mSv per year for the skin and extremities (hands and feet); and
15 mSv per year to the lens of the eye.
5.2.32
Deterministic effects, and associated organ dose limits are not considered further in this report
for the reason, noted above, that adherence to the committed effective dose limit of 1 mSv per
year will prevent such effects occurring.
5.2.33
The likelihood of occurrence of a stochastic effect (rather than the severity of that effect) is
related to the level of exposure to radiation. The system of dose limitation, together with the
requirement to optimise all discharges and resultant doses to members of the public, is
designed to reduce the probability of stochastic effects. The Health and Safety Executive (Ref.
30) introduced a concept of ‘tolerability’ to describe “a willingness to live with a risk so as to
secure certain benefits and in the confidence that it is being properly controlled”.
5.2.34
Determining what is tolerable can be derived from comparisons with the range of voluntary and
involuntary risks that people accept in everyday life, including the risk posed by essentially
unavoidable exposure to natural background radiation.
5.2.35
The HSE (Ref. 30) has indicated that a risk of 10-4 per y should be regarded as the maximum
tolerable risk to a member of the public from a nuclear power station and that for a new facility
a more restrictive upper tolerable risk of 10-5 per year should be applied. Below 10-6 per year,
risks are considered to be ‘broadly acceptable’.
5.2.36
The relationship between the probability of the occurrence of a stochastic health effect (the
response) and the level of exposure to radiation (the dose) at the low levels of radiation
exposure routinely experienced at work or in the environment is assumed, for the purposes of
radiological protection, to be a Linear No-Threshold (LNT) relationship. Put simply, the
response is assumed to be directly proportional to the dose with no threshold below which the
effect does not occur. This approach is taken because it is believed to be prudent and so is
likely to err in the direction of caution. It is also a practical approach for managing radiation
protection. It is acknowledged that there remains some scientific debate about the applicability
of the LNT approach for very low doses, and some of this is addressed in the generic
justification document presented by the Nuclear Industry Association (Ref. 22).
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 53
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.37
For the purposes of this health assessment, the conventional approach to determining the risk
arising from stochastic effects is adopted – with a linear no-threshold response and dose
response coefficients which are internationally applied.
5.2.38
Two types of stochastic health effect are of concern to radiological protection: cancer in the
exposed individual and hereditary disease in the individual’s descendents.
5.2.39
Studies have shown that, of these two, the risk of the exposed individual developing cancer is
relatively much larger than the risk to their descendants. The ICRP (2007) has assessed the risk
coefficients (the additional risk over a person’s lifetime per unit radiation dose received) for low
dose and/or low dose-rate exposure as follows.
Table 5.2: ICRP Dose-Risk Coefficients
Exposed
Population
The Detriment-Adjusted
Nominal Risk Coefficient
(per Sv)*
Heritable Effects
(per Sv)
Total Detriment
(per Sv)
All ages
5.5%
0.2%
5.7%
Adults
4.1%
0.1%
4.2%
* The ICRP has defined the Detriment-Adjusted Nominal Risk Coefficient as a weighted sum of lifetime risks per dose for fatal and
non-fatal cancer, severe heritable effects, and length of life lost. The risk factor does not take account of medical treatment which
may reduce the risk, or delay the onset, of cancer induction, and is therefore a worst case scenario assuming no intervention.
5.2.40
The ICRP factors are derived for the purposes of making decisions on radiological protection
and are not intended for predicting precise numbers of health effects in a specific population.
Significant effort has been expended in recent years to quantify the uncertainty associated with
these risk estimates. These uncertainty analyses take account of a range of possible
contributions including, for example, variations to the assumption of the LNT relationship at low
doses/dose-rates (see above). Overall, these indicate that the uncertainty in the coefficients
tabulated is unlikely to be more than a factor of two in either direction (i.e. the “true” risk
coefficients are likely to lie within a range from half to twice the risk coefficients adopted by the
ICRP).
ii)
Collective Doses
5.2.41
It follows from the assumption that there is a linear, no-threshold, response to radiation
exposure, that the statistical risk to an individual can be considered in the context of the
number of individuals exposed to derive an overall risk to the exposed community.
5.2.42
The “collective dose” for a particular group of people from a particular source of radiation
means the sum of all the individual doses that each person receives as a result of exposure to
that source. It is a useful way of examining the safety implications of something where a
number of different people may be exposed to radiation at a range of different levels. The unit
of collective dose is the “man-sievert”. As an example: if 3 people are each exposed to a dose
of 0.1 man-mSv, the total collective dose for that group of people is 0.3 man-mSv.
5.2.43
The concept of collective dose can be a useful tool in optimising the level of radiological
protection. For instance, it can help to ensure a proper balance between individual and societal
protection. Wherever practicable, doses should be distributed in a way which is equitable and
a reduction in doses to members of the public may not be justified if it results in a very high
individual dose to a worker, or group of workers.
54
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.44
ICRP advises that it is not intended that collective doses be calculated and applied
indiscriminately to multiply a large number of exceedingly small doses and risks, to represent a
seemingly significant hypothetical collective risk across a population. More detailed guidance
on the derivation and use of collective doses is available from the ICRP (Ref. 31) (Ref. 28).
5.2.45
In this report, potential doses are assessed for individuals likely to represent the most exposed
persons. This provides an indication of the upper level of impacts anticipated and forms the
basis for determining the health impact to the local population. Following the ICRP advice
noted above, collective doses are not considered further here.
iii) Method for Determining Dose to the ‘Critical Group’
5.2.46
In order to determine the significance of the radiological impact of discharges from the
proposed construction of a twin EPR reactor station at Hinkley Point C, with a total electrical
output of around 3,260 MWe, it is necessary to assess the dose uptake from these releases by
the most heavily exposed members of public in the local vicinity (i.e. a critical group).
5.2.47
Wherever practicable, it is good practice to use multiple lines of reasoning to support dose and
impact assessments. In general, three lines of supporting evidence can be put forward:



Prediction based on mathematical modelling: For both existing and planned facilities,
discharges and resultant concentrations in the environment may be modelled allowing
different potential scenarios to be assessed.
Extrapolation from precedent: The worldwide and UK nuclear power generating industry has
been operating for more than 50 years. During this period, significant observational
evidence has been accumulated which can be used to extrapolate most likely discharges,
and associated doses to members of the public, for a variety of reactor types and locations.
Direct observation: For existing facilities, discharges to the environment are monitored
routinely. Resultant concentrations of radioactive materials in the environment are
measured and reported, together with estimates of doses to members of the public.
5.2.48
There is a degree of overlap between the three approaches, specifically in that each approach is
grounded on direct observation and measurement. Argument by extrapolation from precedent
is based on past and present discharge and environmental monitoring programmes. Likewise,
mathematical models are validated against measured datasets, to provide a degree of
reassurance that they offer realistic representations of the processes involved. Even for the very
earliest sites (where no direct observational data were available) dispersion and uptake tests
(for instance using dyes and tracer materials) were undertaken in order to substantiate
predictions of likely impacts.
5.2.49
Each of these lines of evidence is considered here to indicate the potential dose to members of
the public from a new build station at Hinkley Point.
iv) Predicting Impacts from Mathematical Modelling
5.2.50
EDF Energy commissioned an Environmental Appraisal study from Amec (Ref. 32). The method
outlined in the following paragraphs, for undertaking predictive modelling, is summarised from
that report.
5.2.51
The Environment Agency has provided a methodology for carrying out an Initial Radiological
Assessment (IRA). This method document consists of two parts:


a user report containing an overview of the method and tables of “dose per unit release”
(DPUR) for a large number of radionuclides; and
a methods and input data report.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 55
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.52
The purpose and scope of the initial assessment methodology is to provide a system for
undertaking an initial cautious prospective assessment of the dose arising from sources of
radioactive waste discharges to the environment, and to identify those sources of discharges
for which a more detailed assessment should be undertaken. The assessment consists of up to
three stages:



In the first stage the Initial Radiological Assessment is carried out using default data as
defined in the IRA methodology. If the assessed dose is greater than 20 μSv y-1 then a Stage
2 Assessment must be completed;
A Stage 2 Assessment uses refined data, as defined in the IRA methodology, which is more
suited to the site in question. Again, if assessed doses are greater than 20 μSv y-1 then a
Stage 3 Assessment must also be completed;
A Stage 3 Assessment is a separate site-specific assessment.
5.2.53
Completion of an IRA assessment in application for authorisation to discharge is deemed to be
sufficient by the Environment Agency, providing the relevant stages have been completed.
5.2.54
The IRA identifies two local candidate critical groups for assessment. These are:


5.2.55
Releases to Air - Local Resident ‘Farming family’; and
Releases to Coastal Water – ‘Fisherman family’.
In the Initial Radiological Assessment (IRA) the Environment Agency also states that if direct
radiation exposure of the public from sources on a site is known to occur, an assessment of
direct radiation dose should be made.
v)
Predicting Impacts Based on Similar Operating Plant in the UK
5.2.56
Within the UK, the nuclear power generation industry has been operating for more than 50
years. During that period, three main types of reactor have been operated on a commercial
scale. These are known as the Magnox (or first generation) reactors; the Advanced Gas-Cooled
Reactors (AGRs) and the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). Other designs have also been
operated and contributed to the UK generation network, including a Steam Generating Heavy
Water Reactor (SGHWR) and two Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs). In addition, experience within
the UK includes the operation of research reactors and of the Joint European Torus (JET) at
Culham, Oxfordshire.
5.2.57
The proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station design will comprise two UK EPR reactor
units and shared facilities (Ref. 33). The UK EPR reactor unit is based on existing nuclear
technology, developed by Areva in partnership with EDF Energy, and drawing on experience
from French and German designs. Of the reactor types operating within the UK, the PWR at
Sizewell (Sizewell B) is the most similar in design to the type of reactor proposed at Hinkley
Point.
5.2.58
Information relating to discharges from Sizewell B, associated concentrations of radioactivity in
the environment, and derived dose estimates, is published annually.
5.2.59
Noting that this information relates to an east coast location, it nevertheless allows some
comparison to be made with predicted dose estimates for Hinkley Point C derived from
mathematical modelling.
56
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
vi) Predicting Impact Based on Other Nuclear Power Stations and Facilities in the Region
near to Hinkley Point
5.2.60
The region around Hinkley Point already hosts a number of reactors and other licensed
operations. A twin Magnox reactor was operated at Berkeley from 1962 to 1989. This facility is
now being decommissioned, but continues to discharge both liquid and gaseous effluents. A
twin Magnox reactor is also operated at Oldbury, which remains in operation, and a further twin
Magnox reactor is situated on the Hinkley Point A site, which ceased generating electricity in
2000. A twin AGR is also operational at the Hinkley Point B site.
5.2.61
In addition to the above nuclear power stations, a radiopharmaceutical company was operating
at Cardiff, and discharging liquid effluents to the Severn estuary. This recently ceased
operations with radioactive materials.
5.2.62
Information relating to discharges from each of the above establishments, associated
concentrations of radioactivity in the environment, and derived dose estimates, is published
annually.
5.2.63
Recognising that this information relates to facilities which are rather different to the proposed
Hinkley Point C proposal, it nevertheless allows some consideration of local geographic and
demographic features to be introduced and provides a further point of comparison with
predicted dose estimates for Hinkley Point C derived from mathematical modelling.
vii) Radiological Assessment Conclusions
5.2.64
As demonstrated above, a maximum dose constraint for operation of a new nuclear facility at
Hinkley Point would constrain doses to no more than 300 μSv per year. In practice, a lower
dose constraint of nearer to 150 μSv per y may apply, in line with Health Protection Agency (Ref.
28) and Health and Safety Executive advice (Ref. 30), but this cannot be used as the basis for
assessing predicted dose impacts.
5.2.65
Information presented in Appendix C indicates that, in practice, the dose arising from a new
nuclear facility is more likely to be no more than 5 μSv per year, possibly lower.
5.2.66
A dose of 5 μSv per y represents a lifetime risk for fatal and non-fatal cancer, severe heritable
effects, and length of life lost of 2.8X10-7 per year. This is less than the level of 10-6 risk per y,
below which mortality risks are considered to be ‘broadly acceptable’ (Ref. 30).
5.2.67
It is noted that the impact of a new facility would be additional to doses already received from
the operation, and decommissioning, of nuclear licensed facilities in the region. For the ‘critical
group’ local to Hinkley Point, this existing dose currently amounts to around 45 μSv per y from
all pathways.
5.2.68
Whilst considerable uncertainty attaches to the summation of doses, the available evidence
indicates that it is likely that the dose to a member of the public arising from all current and
past operations would not exceed 50-60 μSv per y. This range represents the sum of the
maximum likely dose from the planned new facility and the existing integrated dose to the local
‘critical group’ estimated here, and the summated dose based on modelling of operations over
the next 60 years presented by Amec (Ref. 32). This is approximately 5% of the dose limit (1
mSv per year) to members of the public and is less than one fifth of the dose constraint (300
μSv per year) for members of the public which may be applied to a nuclear facility, as a single
source.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 57
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.69
A total dose around 50-60 μSv per y represents a lifetime risk for fatal and non-fatal cancer,
severe heritable effects, and length of life lost of 2.8X10-6 to 3.3X10-6 per year. This falls within
the region of ‘tolerable risk’ advocated by the HSE (Ref. 30) for a new nuclear power station, as
a single source, and is significantly lower than the upper limit on tolerability of 10-4 risk per year
when considering all man-made sources (with the exception of medical exposures) taken
together.
5.2.70
There are no perfect measures which put risk into context. As an example, the risks associated
with driving may fail to recognise important factors such as driver awareness, which provide a
measure of control over the risks, and the positive benefits associated with the activity. Risks
associated with excessive drinking or obesity may fail to recognise factors involved in lifestyle
choices. Nonetheless, and accepting that no comparisons are perfect, a number of risk factors
have become commonly accepted as measures which allow other risks to be placed in
perspective. A few such risk measures are summarised below. These are all derived for the UK.
Table 5.3: Annual Risk Factors
5.2.71
58
Source of risk
Risk per Year
Source of Information
Death due to smoking 10 cigarettes per day
1:200
Sedgwick and Hall (Ref.34)
Fatal accidents at home
1:7,000
Sedgwick and Hall (Ref. 33)
Fatal road accident
1:20,000
Department for Transport (Ref. 35)
Fatal accidents at the workplace
1:40,000
Sedgwick and Hall (Ref. 34)
Lifetime risks of fatal and non-fatal cancer,
severe heritable effects, and length of life lost
from all sources of radioactive discharge near to
Hinkley Point
1:330,000
This study
Risk of being struck by lightning and recovering
1:1,000,000
TORRO (Ref. 36)
Lifetime risks of fatal and non-fatal cancer,
severe heritable effects, and length of life lost
due to operation of Hinkley Point C
1:3,500,000
This study
Death from being struck by lightning
1:10,000,000
Sedgwick and Hall (Ref. 34)
All of these risk factors have some degree of uncertainty, and will vary from year to year. Thus,
the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (Ref. 36) indicate that the chance of dying from
lightning strike in Britain is currently around 1:20,000,000 to 1:10,000,000 (i.e. a little lower
than shown above), but in 1982 rose to 1:5,000,000 (somewhat higher than shown above) and
in 2000 and 2001 there were no fatalities at all. Likewise, the Department of Health (Ref. 37)
indicated that the risk of death due to an accident at home was around 1:26,000 (nearly four
times lower than presented above).
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.2.72
In a similar fashion to the uncertainty around other risks, the risks from operation of a nuclear
power station at Hinkley Point C may vary from the factors given above. The way in which these
risk factors have been derived means that it is very likely that the actual weighted lifetime risks
of fatal and non-fatal cancer, severe heritable effects, and length of life lost will be lower than
indicated.
5.2.73
All of the information presented is consistent in indicating that a new nuclear facility at Hinkley
Point C is likely to give rise to a ‘critical group’ dose no more than 5 μSv per y, possibly lower. A
dose of 5 μSv per y is considered to be very low and presents a correspondingly low health risk.
5.2.74
Based on current risk factors, doses at this level will not give rise to any deterministic health
effects; that is, health effects which occur only above certain threshold doses. For health
effects which are not subject to a threshold, but where the risk of an effect is linked in a linear
fashion to actual dose, a dose of 5 μSv per y represents a potential weighted lifetime risks of
fatal and non-fatal cancer, severe heritable effects, and length of life lost of 2.8X10-7
(1:3,500,000) per year.
5.2.75
The Health and Safety Executive consider that a mortality risks below 10-6 (or 1:1,000,000) per
year can be considered to be ‘broadly acceptable’. As a broad comparison, the risk from
potential weighted lifetime risk of fatal and non-fatal cancer, severe heritable effects, and
length of life lost as a result of discharges of radioactivity from the operation of Hinkley Point C
is in the same order of magnitude as the risk of death from being struck by lightning in Britain
and is less than 1 in 1 million per year.
5.2.76
The impact of a new facility would be additional to doses already received from the operation,
and decommissioning, of nuclear licensed facilities in the region. For the ‘critical group’ local to
Hinkley Point, this currently amounts to around 45 μSv per y from all pathways. Whilst
considerable uncertainty attaches to the summation of doses, the available evidence indicates
that it is likely that the dose to a member of the public arising from all current and past
operations would not exceed 50-60 μSv per y.
5.2.77
A total dose of 50-60 μSv per y represents a weighted lifetime risk of fatal and non-fatal cancer,
severe heritable effects, and length of life lost from of approximately 1:330,000 per year. Given
the way in which the potential dose has been estimated, that the actual risk is likely to be lower
than shown here.
5.2.78
On the above basis, it is concluded that for an individual living near to Hinkley Point, the direct
health risk from discharges of radioactivity to the environment will be low, and is significantly
within ICRP Guidelines set to protect health.
5.3
Potential Health Risk from Electromagnetic Field Exposure
a) Overview
5.3.1
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and the electromagnetic forces they represent are a fundamental
part of the physical world. Electromagnetic forces are partly responsible for the cohesion of
material substances and they mediate all the processes of chemistry, including those of life
itself. EMFs occur naturally both within the human body (through nerve and muscle activity)
and also arise from the natural magnetic field created by Earth and electric fields in the
atmosphere.
5.3.2
Unlike ionizing radiation found in the upper part of the electromagnetic spectrum (such as
gamma rays given off by radioactive materials, cosmic rays and X-rays), EMFs are much too
weak to break the bonds that hold molecules in cells together and, therefore cannot produce
ionization. This is why EMF are categorised as ‘non-ionizing radiation’.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 59
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
b) Electric and Magnetic Fields
5.3.3
The atmospheric electric field at ground level is normally about 100 volts per metre (V/m) in fine
weather and may rise to many thousands of volts per metre during thunderstorms. Electricity in
homes is at a voltage of 230 V (volts) but outside homes it is distributed at higher voltages from 11 kV up to 400 kV. Generally, the higher the voltage, the higher the electric field.
However, electric fields are readily screened by most building materials and by vegetation
including trees and hedges.
5.3.4
Magnetic fields are produced by current, which is the flow of electricity. Anything that uses or
carries mains electricity is potentially a source of power-frequency magnetic fields, which
modulate the Earth's steady natural fields. The strength of the magnetic-field modulation
depends on the current carried by the equipment, where generally, the higher the current, the
higher the magnetic field. As such, magnetic fields come from a wide range of sources and vary
significantly within households, workplaces and the built and natural environment.
5.3.5
However, a common feature of power frequency magnetic fields is how their field strength falls
sharply as the distance from the source increases.
5.3.6
Such a decrease in magnetic field strength also applies to step up transformers and National
Grid substations (where 275 kV and 400 kV overhead power lines or underground cables are
switched). Each substation can be a hundred metres or more across and is surrounded by a
metal fence. The metal fence ensures that almost no electric fields emerge from the substation
itself. Any electric fields round the substation will come almost entirely from the overhead
power lines entering it.
5.3.7
The equipment inside substations produces magnetic fields, but the field falls with distance
quite rapidly, and at the perimeter fence or a few metres outside it, the magnetic field from
inside the substation is usually approaching background levels. Again, the largest magnetic
fields round the perimeter of a substation almost always come from the overhead lines and
underground cables entering it.
c) Health Risk from EMF
5.3.8
Scientific knowledge about the health effects of EMF is substantial and is based on a large
number of epidemiological, animal and in-vitro studies. Many health outcomes ranging from
reproductive defects to cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases have been examined
but have not been substantiated.
5.3.9
The most consistent evidence to date concerns childhood leukaemia. In 2001, an expert
scientific working group of WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed
studies related to the carcinogenicity of static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and
magnetic fields (Ref. 40). Using the standard IARC classification that applies weightings to
human, animal and laboratory evidence, ELF magnetic fields were classified as possibly
carcinogenic to humans based on epidemiological studies of childhood leukaemia.
5.3.10
It is important to note that “possibly carcinogenic to humans” is a classification used to denote
an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than
sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals. As an example, another wellknown agent classified in the same category is coffee, which may increase risk of kidney cancer,
while at the same time be protective against bowel cancer. Evidence for all other cancers in
children and adults, as well as other types of exposures (i.e. static fields and ELF electric fields)
is considered inadequate to classify either due to insufficient or inconsistent scientific
information.
60
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.3.11
While the classification of ELF magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans has been
made by IARC and is supported by the UK NRPB, it remains possible that there are other
explanations for the observed association between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and
childhood leukaemia.
d) EMF Occupational and Public Exposure Guideline
5.3.12
In previous years the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) was the independent body
charged by the government with giving advice on EMFs, including advice on safe levels of
occupational and public EMF exposure. In April 2005, the NRPB joined the Health Protection
Agency, becoming the Radiation Protection Division. Following a review of the relevant
scientific data (Ref. 38) and an extensive consultation exercise, the NRPB published their latest
advice on limiting exposures to EMFs. This advice recommends that the UK adopts guidance
levels published internationally by the ICNIRP (Ref. 39).
5.3.13
As shown in Table 5.4, the ICNIRP guidelines are significantly lower than the previous NRPB
guidelines and place higher restrictions on the general public due to the inclusion of sensitive
groups such as children, the elderly and infirm.
Table 5.4: Comparison of NRPB and ICNIRP Guidelines
Description
5.3.14
NRPB Guidelines (1993)
1998 ICNIRP Guidelines
(1998)
Occupational and Public
Exposure
Occupational
Public
Basic Restriction
(the quantity
which must not
be exceeded)
Induced current
density in the
central nervous
system
10 mA m-2
10 mA m-2
2 mA m-2
Reference Level
(not a limit in
itself but a guide
to when you
need to
investigate the
basic restriction
Magnetic field
1600 μT
500 μT
100 μT
Electric field
12 kV m-1
10 kV m-1
5 kV m5 kV
m-1
As detailed in the Environmental Appraisal, the proposed Hinkley Point C power station grid
connection will align with the existing Hinkley Point infrastructure. As set out in the
Environmental Appraisal, once operational, the proposed facility will not result in a significant
change in overhead power line EMF, and on-site EMF from the power stations and associated
distribution infrastructure will comply with occupational and public exposure guidelines set to
protect health.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 61
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.3.15
In light of the current evidence base of EMF health effects, that existing power distribution lines
will be utilised and that effect from the proposed facility will fall well within occupational and
public exposure guidelines, it is concluded that the proposed development will not constitute a
significant risk to community or staff health from EMF exposure.
5.4
Potential Health Risk from Changes in Air Quality
a) Overview
5.4.1
A core health pathway associated with the construction of the proposed Development and the
off-site associated developments is the generation of emissions to air and subsequent
community exposure. Research into the potential health effects of emissions is extensive and
provides statistically significant associations between many classical air pollutants (e.g.
Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulphur Dioxide) and effects on a wide range of
cardiovascular and respiratory health outcomes. The following section applies the current
scientific evidence base to quantify the potential health outcome from construction, operation
and transport emissions directly attributable to the proposed development.
b) Construction Emissions
5.4.2
In accordance with convention, the modelling of emissions carried out as part of the air quality
assessment in the Environmental Appraisal uses conservative assumptions for assessing
compliance with limit thresholds set to protect the environment and health. Using this
precautionary approach, the worst-case impacts of construction emissions are all predicted to
be significantly below the relevant thresholds and are not of a level to constitute any
meaningful risk to health. Such a conclusion is further investigated in the following sections.
c) Particulate Matter (PM10)
5.4.3
Key stakeholders have expressed concern regarding potential exposure to particulate matter
(PM10 – particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less), and the
necessity to further establish what the potential health outcome of the Hinkley Point C Project
may present to local communities.
5.4.4
Applying the available evidence base (Ref. 41)(Ref. 42)(Ref. 43)(Ref. 44), and the detailed air
quality modelling outputs within the Environmental Appraisal, community exposure to PM10
construction emissions are not of an order to quantify any meaningful change in life
expectancy. This is based on the exposure response coefficients developed by the UK
Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) that
established there is a 0.75% increased risk in the background rate of all cause mortality per 10
μg.m-3 increase in PM10 per 100,000 individuals exposed (Ref. 41). In this instance, both
emission concentration and community exposure are orders of magnitude lower than is
necessary to quantify any meaningful change in local health outcome.
5.4.5
On this basis, it is concluded that the construction of the proposed Development and off-site
associated developments will not result in PM10 emissions of a level to result in any meaningful
change in local cardiovascular or respiratory hospital admissions.
62
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
d) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
5.4.6
Evidence suggests that increased exposure to PM2.5 (mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5
microns or less) is potentially more hazardous to human health than larger particles (Ref. 42).
5.4.7
However, even when assuming all particulates modelled are PM2.5, the changes in emission
concentration exposure directly attributed to the construction phase are not of a level to
quantify any meaningful change in life expectancy:
5.4.8
On this basis, PM2.5 construction emissions are not of a level to quantify any meaningful change
in life expectancy.
e) Nitrogen Dioxide
5.4.9
As demonstrated in the ES, modelling indicates the construction of the proposed Development
will result in a marginal increase in NO2.
5.4.10
However, such emission concentration and community exposure are not of an order of
magnitude to quantify any meaningful change in health outcome. On this basis, it is concluded
that potential changes in NO2 community exposure will not be of a level to result in any
measurable health outcome.
f)
Transport Emissions
5.4.11
As detailed in the Air Quality assessment of the Environmental Appraisal (and summarised in
Table 5.5), ambient air quality is expected to improve within the area, largely as a consequence
of improved road vehicle emission abatement technology.
5.4.12
As shown below, transport emissions directly attributed to the peak construction phase in
Cannington and Bridgwater are minor, and as discussed below, are not of an order of
magnitude to quantify any meaningful change in health outcome (change in life expectancy or
cardiovascular or respiratory hospital admissions).
Table 5.5: Maximum Construction PM10 and NO2 Contributions
2008 ‘Without
Development’
2016 ‘Without
Development’
2016 ‘With
Development’
Difference ‘2016
With and
Without
Development’
Average PM10 μg.m-3
18.9
17.4
17.4
0
Maximum PM10 μg.m3
contribution at any
point
19.6
17.8
17.9
0.1
Average NO2 μg.m-3
11.7
8.2
8.6
0.4
Maximum NO2 μg.m-3
contribution at any
point
21.2
15.7
17.7
2
Cannington
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 63
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
2008 ‘Without
Development’
2016 ‘Without
Development’
2016 ‘With
Development’
Difference ‘2016
With and
Without
Development’
Average PM10 μg.m-3
17.7
16.3
16.3
0
Maximum PM10 μg.m3
contribution at any
point
24.1
20.2
20.2
0
Average NO2 μg.m-3
27.7
21.9
22.1
0.2
Maximum NO2 μg.m-3
contribution at any
point
75.6
67.8
68.1
0.3
Bridgwater
5.4.13
Applying the 2016 peak construction phase, there is no change in PM10 concentration at any of
the modelled receptors directly attributed to the proposed development, and therefore no risk
of a potential adverse health outcome from PM10.
5.4.14
Maximum changes in NO2 directly attributed to the proposed development include a 2 μg.m-3
increase in Cannington and a 0.3 μg.m-3 increase at Bridgwater. However, such changes in NO2
concentration are modelled at the centre of roads and rapidly reduce with limited potential for
community exposure.
5.4.15
Applying the previously described evidence base, such a change in NO2 concentration
represents a potential 0.1% increase in respiratory hospital admissions for those communities
exposed (typically quantified per 100,000 people). In this instance, potential community
exposure is far lower than is necessary to quantify any change in respiratory hospital
admissions. To put such risk into context, applying the highest respiratory hospital admission
rate in Somerset of 1,234 per 100,000 (experienced in Taunton Deane), the entire population of
Sedgemoor (117,000) would have to reside at the highest NO2 concentration (in the centre of a
road) for a year before a single respiratory hospital admission would occur.
5.4.16
On this basis, it is concluded that potential changes in PM10 and NO2 concentration exposure
from transport emissions will not be of a level to result in any measurable health outcome.
g) Operation Emissions
5.4.17
Once operational, the only potential for on-site emissions to air is short term emissions arising
from the engines of the backup diesel generators.
5.4.18
For each EPR unit there are four main Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG) and two Station Black
Out (SBO) generators, providing backup power supply in the unlikely case of loss of the main
off-site power supply. Such generators provide a series of redundancies so that the EPR unit
can always be secured and the reactor cooled.
5.4.19
As detailed in the Air Quality Assessment of the Environmental Appraisal, a number of scenarios
were modelled to assess the potential risk to local discrete receptors (including farms, caravan
park and kennels) against short term air quality objectives.
64
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.4.20
This section concentrates on changes in short term exposure to PM10 and SO2, where sufficient
evidence exists to base a quantitative assessment on changes in hospital admissions and life
expectancy.
5.4.21
As shown in Table 5.6, two key scenarios have been applied, namely:


‘Emergency C3’ a ‘Worst Case Scenario’, assuming a highly unrealistic scenario where all
potential operational emissions from both the EPR units occur (i.e. all 8 EDG and 4 SBO
generators are discharging simultaneously); and
‘Test C1a’ a ‘Routine Test Scenario’ assuming that only emissions from single EDG or SBO
generators occur.
Table 5.6: Maximum Operational PM10 and SO2 Contributions (EDG and SBO)
Pollutant
Average
Highest Mean
Concentration
(μgm-3 )and
Location
Average
Maximum
Concentration
(μgm-3 )
Maximum
Concentration
(μgm-3 ) and
Location
Emergency C3 Scenario
PM10 24-hour
39.04
40.42
56.73
Wick Farm
SO2 24-hour
4.50
5.17
72.17
Knighton Farm
13.11
Wick Farm
20.64
Knighton Farm
Test C1a Scenario
PM10 24-hour
37.35
37.48
38.89
Wick Farm
SO2 24-hour
3.67
3.73
Zipe Farm,
40.47
Shurton Village
4.42
5.19
Shurton Village
Wick Farm
h) Emergency C3 Scenario
5.4.22
In the unlikely situation all back up generators are utilised, the maximum contribution of PM10
at any modelled receptor will be 72.17 μg.m-3 (24 hour mean). Applying the previously
discussed COMEAP methodology, this may constitute a 5.7% increase in the background level
of cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions for those people exposed (typically
measured per 100,000 exposed).
5.4.23
Given the limited level of community exposure, the highly unlikely scenario that all generators
will run simultaneously, and that such exposure is likely to be less than 24 hours, the likelihood
of a potential adverse health outcome from short term PM10 exposure is low, and not of a level
to quantify at the property level.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 65
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.4.24
COMEAP also provide a risk ratio of 0.5% of an additional respiratory hospital admission per
10 μg.m-3 of SO2 (24 hour mean) (Ref. 41). Applying such an evidence base, the maximum
concentration of 20.64 μg.m-3 of SO2 at Knighton Farm constitutes a potential 1% increase in
the background rate of respiratory hospital admissions for those people exposed. Based upon
the highly unlikely scenario that all generators will run simultaneously, and that such exposure
is likely to be less than 24 hours, the likelihood of a potential adverse health outcome from
short term SO2 exposure is low, and not of a level to quantify at the property level.
i)
Test C1a Scenario
5.4.25
The test scenario will involve the periodic operation and testing of individual backup
generators. Such operation represents an estimated 81 hours of operation per year for each of
the generators.
5.4.26
As detailed in the Air Quality assessment of the Environmental Appraisal, and summarised in
Table 5.3, such periodic testing is expected to result in a maximum contribution of 40.47 μg.m-3
-24hour PM10 and 5.19 μg.m-3 -24hour SO2 at Shurton Village. This represents a respective
3.2% potential increase in the background level of daily respiratory and cardiovascular hospital
admissions, and a potential 0.2% increase in daily respiratory hospital admissions for those
exposed.
5.4.27
Given that such concentrations represent the highest concentration at any of the discreet
receptors modelled, the low occurrence of such testing and that levels of community exposure
are orders of magnitude lower than is necessary to quantify any meaningful health outcome, it
is concluded that the periodic operation of the backup generators is unlikely to result in any
measurable health outcome.
5.4.28
On the above basis, operational emissions are not anticipated to result in any measurable
adverse health outcome (change in life expectancy or additional respiratory or cardiovascular
hospital admissions). However, additional mitigation is recommended to schedule the periodic
testing of diesel generators when weather conditions and wind patterns are optimal for
emission dispersion away from local communities. Such a recommendation is further outlined
in the Health Action plan.
5.5
Potential Health Risk from Additional Road Movements
a) Overview
5.5.1
Potential health pathways associated with changes in road traffic movements include increased
exposure to vehicle exhaust emissions, noise and risk of road traffic accident and injury. Each
is discussed in more detail below.
b) Risk of Road Accident and Injury
5.5.2
The major and most obvious hazard of road transport is human injury as a result of collision.
The calculation of injuries as a result of new journeys and increased traffic flows is not an exact
science. One approach is to calculate an accident rate per journey, based on the gross
statistics. The advantage of this method is that the number of accidents can be calculated
without a detailed knowledge of road traffic movements on particular road types or the number
of kilometres travelled. This method also takes into account the additional risk associated with
the whole trip and not just the additional vehicle kilometres in the area around the
development.
5.5.3
The disadvantages are that it applies a standard rate to the population and does not consider
any of the more sophisticated data that is available about particular road types or the effect of
66
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
the number of kilometres. Notwithstanding this, it is consistent with the approach adopted on
a national basis.
5.5.4
According to UK Department for Transport statistics (Ref. 45), there were 230,905 accidents on
all UK roads for all forms of transport in 2008. Of this figure, 26,034 were classified as serious
and 2,538 as fatal.
5.5.5
The annual number of vehicle journeys or ‘trips’ per person per annum can be estimated by the
following method. As of mid 2008, there were approximately 54.4 million people in the UK (Ref.
4) and an average of 637 trips per person per year (Ref. 46). Taken together, the result is
34.7billion trips per year in road vehicles.
5.5.6
There are also approximately 306 million trips made in the UK per annum by goods vehicles.
This gives a total of 35 billion trips per annum by cars, buses and vans/goods vehicles.
5.5.7
The per trip risk of a road user (including pedestrians) being involved in a road traffic accident
can therefore be calculated by dividing the number of road accidents by the number of trips.
The extra number of deaths or serious injuries can then be calculated by multiplying the
additional number of vehicle trips (directly attributed to the proposed development) by the per
trip risk.
5.5.8
As detailed in the traffic modelling provided within the Environmental Appraisal, applying the
Annual Average Daily Traffic rate (AADT is the average transport movements over 7 days a
week), construction staff bus movements and HGVs will generate an additional 3,058 vehicle
two-way road trips per day (comprising 1,664 HGV and 1,394 bus trips in and out).
5.5.9
Applying the worst case construction traffic scenario, where maximum construction traffic rates
remain constant throughout the year (7 days a week, 52 weeks a year) and prior to mitigation,
the increase in road vehicle movements attributable to the construction of the proposed
Development may contribute to seven accidents per year, 0.8 of which may be serious and 0.08
fatal.
5.5.10
It is important to note that this approach considers all roads, road users and pedestrians
involved in UK accidents. As such, the previous calculation represents a worst-case scenario
and inherently over-estimates the potential risks. On this basis, and following mitigation,
construction traffic movements are not expected to present a significant risk from traffic
collision.
5.5.11
Once operational, average daily trips will not generate road transport movements of a level to
quantify any meaningful change in risk from road traffic accidents. However, maintenance
periods will generate higher rates of road transport movements. Such trips are not anticipated
to generate road transport movements of a level to quantify any meaningful change in risk from
road traffic accidents, and will be further managed through the Transport Strategy.
5.6
Potential Community Noise Impact
a) Overview
5.6.1
Noise has the potential to affect health in a variety of ways. Some of the effects can be auditory
and occur as a direct impact of the noise. Direct auditory effects usually result in damage to the
ear, in particular damage to the inner ear, from intense and prolonged exposure. Such risks are
usually associated with occupational health or prolonged exposure to loud music, and
managed though good working practice and the provision of appropriate personal protection
equipment to construction workers. Such auditory effects do not present a risk to local
communities.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 67
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.6.2
Community effects are more typically associated with non-auditory health effects that may be
associated with exposure to environmental noise, although the pathways and strength of
association for these are not fully understood, and can vary between individuals. Examples of
non-auditory health effects include:





annoyance;
mental health;
cardiovascular and physiological;
cognitive performance (tasks and academic); and
night-time effects (sleep disturbance).
5.6.3
A consensus on the level and duration of noise required to instigate potential health impacts is
not clearly defined. The main emphasis of noise standards and regulations is therefore placed
on annoyance and sleep deprivation, as these are the most immediate consequences of noise
impacts, and applicable to everyone.
5.6.4
As demonstrated in the Environmental Appraisal, detailed and bespoke noise and vibration
modelling has been performed for the main development site, and each of the proposed off-site
associated developments. This HIA does not seek to repeat the findings of these assessments,
but provide an additional assessment as to how local communities may respond to noise
during the construction and operation phase and associated transport movements.
b) Construction Noise
5.6.5
As detailed in each of the noise and vibration assessment technical notes, a range of bespoke
construction activities will occur on-site and at the proposed off-site associated developments
that will generate construction noise with the potential to impact upon local community
receptors.
5.6.6
In each case, sensitive community receptors have been modelled to establish worst-case
predicted construction noise exposure, and appropriate mitigation has been presented to
minimise community disruption and annoyance, including:



construction working hours of the proposed off-site associated developments will be
restricted (unless otherwise agreed) to:
o Mon-Fri – 07:00 – 19:00;
o Sat – 07:00 – 13:00; and
o No construction activities on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
standard good construction practice outlined in BS5228-1: 2009 will be followed; and
community liaison will be applied to notify local communities in advance as to particularly
noisy construction activities.
5.6.7
A common feature between all the proposed off-site associated development constructions
sites is that the period with the greatest potential for noise disturbance will be during the
preparation and renewal phase, including demolition, ground excavations and piling. Such
activities will be temporary, intermittent and restricted to day time construction hours only.
Prior to mitigation, potential health impacts are therefore limited to temporary and intermittent
day time annoyance at properties in immediate proximity to sites.
5.6.8
Some construction activities at the main site will have to be undertaken during night-time
hours. However, as detailed in the noise and vibration assessment of the Environmental
Appraisal, given the distance of local receptors, potential noise impacts are not expected to
generate internal noise levels of a level to cause sleep disturbance (Ref. 47).
68
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
c) Operational and Traffic Noise
5.6.9
As detailed in each of the noise and vibration assessments within the Environmental Appraisal,
once operational, potential noise outcomes are again bespoke to the type of activity associated
with each site, as are the noise sensitive receptors modelled and the mitigation proposed.
However, a common feature for each site with the exception of the Cannington Bypass is that,
following mitigation, changes in operational and transport noise will not be significant.
5.6.10
Minor adverse road traffic noise impacts are predicted at 104 dwellings as a result of the
proposed bypass construction, whilst the remaining 657 dwellings assessed will experience
either no change or beneficial road traffic noise impacts.
5.6.11
Residual long-term moderate adverse road traffic noise impacts are predicted at Knapp Farm,
Withiel Farm and a few residential dwellings on Withiel Drive due to construction traffic
(coaches and buses) commuting to the Hinkley Point C site in the early morning and late
evening period. As above, this is not a permanent impact, as the traffic forecasts used in this
assessment were based upon peak construction traffic associated with the proposed Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station.
5.6.12
On the above basis, and following the bespoke mitigation detailed in the Environmental
Appraisal, once operational the proposed development and off-site associated developments
will not significantly influence community noise exposure levels during day or night-time
periods. As a consequence, once operational, potential outcomes are limited to temporary
annoyance, with no risk of sleep deprivation or any measurable health outcome.
5.7
The Potential Social Impact from the Introduction of a Temporary
Non-Home-Based Construction Workforce
a) Overview
5.7.1
Social impacts can be defined as the effect of an activity on the social fabric of the community
and well-being of the individuals and families. The type and magnitude of potential social
outcomes are bespoke to individual communities, influenced by their relative socio-economic
status, demography, size, culture and to some extent, readiness to change.
5.7.2
In this instance, the rapid introduction and then the departure of the non-home-based
construction workforce presents two key social impact pathways, including:


settlement and social interaction; and
access and accessibility to community facilities and amenities.
b) Settlement and Social Interaction
5.7.3
The potential for social interaction and potential impact on local communities will be largely
defined by the accommodation sought, and the number and rate of non-home-based workers
taking it. Applying the 60% non-home-based workforce scenario, the construction phase of the
proposed development will introduce approximately 3,000 workers to the area during the peak
construction phase. Experience during construction of Sizewell B indicates that such
individuals will be typically males aged between 35 to 55, and that with approximately 25% of
these workers may bring families to the local area (estimated at approximately 350-400 families
during the peak construction phase).
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 69
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.7.4
As demonstrated in the socio-economic assessment, and shown in Table 5.7 below, experience
from Sizewell B indicates that the non-home-based construction workforce will utilise a range of
accommodation types depending upon their relative short or long term need, their socioeconomic and professional status, family circumstance and their personal preference.
Table 5.7: Estimated Non-Home-Based Worker Accommodation (60% non-home-based worker
scenario)
Accommodation
Type
Range
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Owner Occupied
10-12%
300-600
11%
330
Private Rented
24-28%
660-840
26%
780
Bed and
Breakfast/guesthouse/caravans
24-30%
720-900
27%
810
Construction
accommodation
campuses
22-40%
990-1,200
36%
1,080
3,300
100
3,000
Total
5.7.5
Mid point
The five day working week policy would enable many non-home-based employees to return
home at weekends, and it is anticipated that a significant proportion would leave the area on
Friday afternoon, returning at the end of the weekend or Monday.
c) Owner Occupied
5.7.6
As shown in Table 5.7, approximately 10-12% of the total peak workforce are likely to seek
owner occupied accommodation within the immediate districts (particularly in Sedgemoor and
West Somerset). This group is likely to comprise those with families, professionals and those
staying for longer periods, and is equivalent to approximately 300-350 housing units. As
detailed in the socio-economic assessment, if spread over a number of years, the housing
requirements likely to be well within the capacity of the local housing market.
5.7.7
Such housing would be relatively diffuse throughout the immediate area and will be based
upon personal preference, requirements and relative affordability. The diffuse nature and
magnitude of such housing uptake, presents a lower likelihood of significant social impact,
where workers and their families will constitute a new, yet small addition to the community, and
their relative social needs can be met by existing amenities and facilities.
d) Private Rented
5.7.8
70
Privately rented accommodation includes guest houses, bed and breakfast, caravan parks,
hotel and private rented accommodation (including the second home market and a latent
accommodation supply identified following local advertisement). Such residences will offer
more short-term accommodation provision, and more significantly influenced by the five day
week working policy with a typical preference by white collar workers.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.7.9
The distribution of such accommodation varies, with the majority located in Sedgemoor (74%)
and more modest levels within West Somerset (13%) and Taunton Deane (8%). (Ref. 48)
5.7.10
By nature, the privately rented accommodation types listed above in paragraph 5.7.8 are
already geared to cater to temporary increases in local population and associated social
interactions, as are the communities that surround them and the recreational and leisure
facilities that serve them. However, the composition of the non-home-based workforce is
anticipated to be more homogenous than such accommodation types may typically be used to
(i.e. a predominately male population aged between 35-55 in contrast to tourists, couples and
families).
5.7.11
In sufficient numbers, such homogeneity will increase demand on particular recreational and
entertainment facilities and amenities. This has the opportunity to increase local expenditure
and improve the viability and sustainability of existing and new facilities, particularly during offpeak tourist periods.
5.7.12
However, other services and amenities reliant on more mixed residents and tourists, may incur
a decrease in demand as the non-home-based workforce displaces a more heterogeneous mix
of visitor with different spending behaviour.
5.7.13
The five day working week policy is anticipated to in part manage such impacts, facilitating nonhome-based workers to return home, while also enabling more varied weekend trade.
5.7.14
As such, the key social impact associated with the potential introduction of the non-homebased workforce within the private rented accommodation market, is the potential influence
upon supporting recreational, entertainment and tourist facilities. The magnitude of effect is
dependent upon the number of non-home-based workforce using such accommodation, the
season, the size of the host community (and ability to cater to their needs) and the relative rate
of change.
5.7.15
Applying the distribution of existing private rented accommodation, and assuming capacity
previously described, the proposed development is estimated to result in 599 non-home-based
workers residing in Sedgemoor, 105 in West Somerset and 65 in Taunton Deane during the
peak construction phase. The distribution of construction workers is therefore weighted
towards larger population centres, which are more able to cater to the social needs of the nonhome-based construction workforce. It is also important to note that such figures are based
upon the peak construction phase, where there will be a gradual build up to this peak, followed
by a similar gradual decline.
5.7.16
Given that private rented accommodation facilities are typically geared to meeting the social
and recreational needs of visitors to the area, and that the distribution of non-home-based
construction workers will be gradual and weighted towards larger population centres, the
uptake of private rented accommodation by temporary non-home-based construction workers is
not anticipated to adversely impact upon the social fabric of host communities or result in
significant social impacts.
5.7.17
However, additional mitigation is recommended within the Health Action Plan to reduce
potential social and socio-economic impacts from the non-home-based construction workforce
on tourism during peak seasons, and to further facilitate integration with local communities.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 71
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
e) Construction Accommodation Campuses
5.7.18
Supplementing the existing accommodation supply, during the peak construction phase EDF
Energy proposes to accommodate 1,925 workers in purpose built accommodation campuses in
three locations:



an accommodation campus to the south of the Hinkley Point C construction site;
an accommodation campus at the former Innovia Factory site off the A39 Bath Road
(previously known as part of the BRI-A site in the Stage 1 consultation); and
an accommodation campus on Land at College Road/Bridgwater and Albion Rugby Football
Club (previously known as part of the BRI-C site in the Stage 1 consultation).
5.7.19
From experience at Sizewell B, and as shown in Table 5.7, the purpose built accommodation
campuses are estimated to accommodate approximately 36% of the total non-home-based
construction workforce during the peak construction phase. The strategy behind the
accommodation campuses follows experience from Sizewell B, and is intended to minimise
community disruption, risk from associated transport movements, and to effectively facilitate
the requirements of the non-home-based construction workforce.
5.7.20
However, such accommodation campus constitutes a large, homogenous addition to local
communities, where current social, recreational and entertainment facilities will be geared to
the existing population. The rate of change is also anticipated to be more rapid than the two
previous accommodation types, with a greater appeal to workers due to competitively priced
accommodation with convenient/rapid transport to site.
5.7.21
Prior to mitigation, the accommodation campuses therefore represent potential for social
disruption, including a potential impact on local social networks, recreation and entertainment
services, amenities and the potential for poor integration, with subsequent social and cultural
impacts.
5.7.22
In contrast, these accommodation campuses can also represent a significant opportunity to
increase local expenditure, supporting both regeneration and the development of new and
more viable community facilities and amenities.
5.7.23
The magnitude of impact will be defined by the size and location of such accommodation
campuses, the supporting amenities provided as part of the development of the
accommodation campuses, how these amenities and facilities are shared within existing
communities, and the ability of the host community to cater to the non-home-based
construction workforce needs.
f)
5.7.24
Temporary on-site residential accommodation will make provision for up to 700 workers at
Hinkley Point, and will be relatively self-contained, including a mix of other uses, including:







5.7.25
72
Hinkley Point Accommodation Campus
restaurant facilities;
a bar and lounge area;
a gym and associated facilities;
common areas;
a shop;
laundry facilities; and
a health facility.
Following construction, the accommodation campus will be removed, with no permanent social
impact on local communities.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.7.26
Given the rural location of the proposed accommodation campus, a construction worker bus
service will be provided to larger population centres (able to cater to a wide range of social,
recreational and entertainment needs). Such a bus service will further aid in minimising
potentially more significant social impacts upon smaller population settlements in proximity to
Hinkley Point (including the nearest hamlets of Shurton, Burton and Stolford).
5.7.27
On this basis, the potential social impacts from the on-site accommodation campus are limited
to increased utilisation of amenities and facilities within larger population centres such as
Bridgwater, and a potential cumulative impact with the Bridgwater accommodation campus. In
contrast, the temporary increase in local population will increase local expenditure with
associated socio-economic benefits.
g) The former Innovia Factory Accommodation
5.7.28
The proposed temporary accommodation campus at the former Innovia Factory site is located
within the relatively deprived Bridgwater Sydenham ward, and is designed to accommodate up
to 1,075 construction workers for approximately five years. The accommodation campus will be
supported by a range of internal facilities, including:








canteen;
shop for daily consumables (e.g. newspapers and food);
bar;
medical facility;
audio-visual facilities;
IT facilities;
training and meeting rooms; and
library.
5.7.29
Shared recreational and sports facilities, including multi-use sports hall, football pitches and
tennis courts will also be provided, and the accommodation campus will be served by a shuttle
bus service to Hinkley Point. Following the construction phase, the buildings would be removed
to enable residential development to come forward as part of the planning permission for a
mixed use development at Land at North East Bridgwater (Local Planning Authority Ref:
09/08/00017).
5.7.30
As of mid 2007, the Sydenham ward comprised approximately 6,628 individuals (3,277 males
and 3,351 females), and exhibits a relatively high level of socio-economic deprivation at both
the ward and super output area level. The introduction of 1,075 non-home-based construction
workers therefore represents a 16% increase in the total ward population, and a 32% increase
in the male population. Prior to mitigation, this peak construction rate presents a significant
change in local community demography, and given the homogenous nature of the construction
workforce, the potential for poor social integration and unrest.
5.7.31
Given the urban nature and size of Bridgwater, non-home-based construction workers are
anticipated to make use of both local and wider facilities and amenities throughout Bridgwater.
This has the following advantages:



increasing local expenditure, and associated income and employment opportunities, aiding
in addressing local pockets of inequality, deprivation and associated burdens of poor
health;
increasing local service demands, thereby improving the viability and sustainability of
existing and new community facilities and amenities;
improving green and public transport networks (through infrastructure and increased
patronage) within and between communities, thereby improving community integration and
cohesion; and
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 73
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL

priming the area for further regeneration by increasing the quality of the built environment,
associated infrastructure and social capital.
5.7.32
On this basis, the proposed accommodation campus at the former Innovia Factory has the
potential to influence the local demographic nature of the Sydenham ward significantly, and
temporarily impact upon the social fabric of the host community. However, such impacts will
be temporary and balanced against the provision of increased and enhanced social capital and
significant socio economic opportunities.
5.7.33
The Health Action Plan provides additional recommendations to further facilitate the local
integration of the non-home-based working community and to address potential barriers to
social and economic benefit uptake.
h) The College Road/Bridgwater and Albion Rugby Football Club Accommodation Campus
5.7.34
The proposed temporary accommodation campus at Land at College Road/Bridgwater and
Albion Rugby Football Club is also located within the Bridgwater Sydenham ward within the
neighbouring Sedgemoor 008C Super Output Area. The accommodation campus will provide
temporary accommodation for 150 non-home-based workers for approximately nine years, and
will be supported by a more modest array of internal facilities. The accommodation campus will
utilise the shared facilities proposed as part of the proposed neighbouring accommodation
campus (the former Innovia Factory site).
Following the construction phase, the
accommodation campus will be utilised for student accommodation in connection with
Bridgwater College.
5.7.35
The potential provision of accommodation for 150 non-home-based construction workers at
this site represents a 2% increase in the total ward population, and a 4% increase in the total
male population. Similar to the Innovia Factory site, this workforce will supplement and make
use of the wider facilities and amenities throughout Bridgwater, thereby reducing the level and
magnitude of disruption and social impact within the Sydenham ward.
5.8
The Potential Change in Health Need from a Temporary Non-HomeBased Construction and Maintenance Workforce
a) Overview
5.8.1
The introduction of a large construction workforce over a prolonged construction period
presents a number of occupational and public health care requirements necessary to:



prevent and treat occupational health risks;
prevent and treat worker communicable and sexually transmitted infections; and
promote worker health and well-being through preventative health care initiatives.
5.8.2
Such provision is not only necessary to maintain a healthy, vibrant and effective workforce, but
also complements wider public health programmes required to minimise potential health
impacts to host communities.
5.8.3
This section outlines the current health care capacity within the three immediate districts,
discusses the potential impact upon local capacity, and provides a recommended health care
planning contribution to support Somerset PCT in the planning and delivery of local health care
provision during the peak construction phase.
5.8.4
The Health Action Plan also provides a series of recommendations to support Somerset PCT in
the delivery of their strategic health objectives through EDF Energy community support
initiatives.
74
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
b) General and Emergency Hospital Requirements
5.8.5
During the peak construction phase the introduction of 3,000 non-home-based workers into the
local area is not expected to have a significant impact upon general or emergency hospital
capacity, where:






5.8.6
the non-home-based workforce represents a maximum 1% increase in the population the
hospitals currently serve during the peak construction phase;
Somerset PCT provides an exemplary health care provision with existing capacity and some
of the shortest waiting times for hospital treatment in the country;
new and enhanced health care provision is already planned and underway to increase
capacity and further improve services;
non-home-based workers will typically be within the 35-55 age bracket (exhibiting a
relatively low total and emergency hospital admission rate);
occupational and general health will be largely addressed through the proposed on-site
temporary EDF Energy medical centre (including ambulance provision); and
EDF Energy is implementing preventative health measures that complement Somerset PCT
initiatives, including:
o supporting an increase in physical activity through new and enhanced public and green
transport infrastructure;
o the provision of sports and recreation facilities and amenities;
o the promotion of healthier lifestyles through no smoking policies (occupational and
residential);
o the provision of sexual health care and awareness programmes through the EDF Energy
medical centre; and
o action to address socio-economic deprivation, inequality and associated pockets of
poor health through education and employment initiatives.
On this basis, the temporary construction workforce is unlikely to have any material impact
upon general or emergency hospital capacity, but would benefit from ongoing engagement with
the PCT, to discuss complementing health care services and wider community health and
support initiatives.
c) GP Surgeries
5.8.7
Although the bulk of construction worker health care will be internalised through the provision
of a high quality on-site medical centre (including ambulance facility), experience from Sizewell
B indicates that there will be overflow, particularly from non-home-based workers with families
on GP surgeries. During Sizewell B, approximately 30% of the non-home-based construction
workforce registered with GPs within a 20 mile radius of the site.
5.8.8
Although there are no statutory limits on the number of patients per GP, the NHS considers any
area with a population per GP ratio above the national average to be under-doctored.
5.8.9
As shown in Table 5.8, applying data from the Strategic Review of Primary Care Infrastructure
(September 2008), there is currently potential capacity locally to accommodate more than 50%
of the temporary increased demand from the non-home-based workforce during the peak
construction phase.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 75
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table 5.8: Average List Sizes per GP in Local GP Practices
Area/Practice
Practice
List Size
List Size per
WTE GP
List Size per
WTE GP and
Nurse
Practioner
Potential Capacity
before GP Surgery is
Considered Under
Doctored
Brent House
7,550
1,589
1,589
161
New East Quay
13,579
1,940
1,940
-190
Redgate
7,055
2,016
1,523
227
Somerset Bridge
2,413
1,379
1,177
573
Taunton Road
13,758
1,762
1,388
362
Victoria Park
3,629
1,452
1,452
298
Sub-Total: Bridgwater
1,431
Burnham
15,070
1,914
1,914
-164
Highbridge
13,907
2,060
1,751
-1
Brent Area (East
Brent)
2,763
1,842
1,842
-92
Sub-Total: Burnham and Highbridge area
-257
Cannington
5,361
1,650
1,650
100
North Petherton
4,602
1,841
1,841
-91
Quantock (Nether
Stowey)
3,171
1,586
1,153
164
West Somerset
10,130
1,447
1,447
303
(Watchet and
Williton)
5.8.10
Sub-Total
476
Total capacity within 10 miles of Hinkley
1,650
Furthermore, it is understood that Somerset PCT is in the process of redeveloping and
refurbishing 52 of the county’s GP practices. Surgeries to benefit from such investment include:




76
17 existing practices receiving grants to extend or improve their premises at a cost of £3
million over the next 12 months;
32 existing surgeries being replaced and three new surgeries being built over the five years
to 2014 at a full year revenue cost of £5 million per annum;
an extension to St James Surgery in Taunton completed during 2008/09;
the first new surgeries at Dulverton and Milborne Port opened early in 2009/10; and
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL

opening of Yeovil’s new GP Led Health Centre, providing convenient walk-in health services
and bookable appointments with a doctor from 8.00 am until 8.00 pm.
5.8.11
As such, GP surgery capacity is likely to further increase in the build up to the peak construction
phase. However, such enhancements and additional capacity are intended to meet anticipated
population growth within the region, and to continue to provide high quality public health care.
As such, additional measures may be required to address the potential residual impact upon
local GP surgery capacity from the non-home-based construction workforce.
5.8.12
EDF Energy will initially focus on working with the PCT to prevent potential capacity issues,
including the following:




engaging with the PCT to identify GP surgeries that can best accommodate any temporary
non-home-based workforce and family needs (including any language barriers). This is
expected to include the Somerset Bridge Medical Centre with capacity for 3,000, East Quay
and Victoria Park;
displaying such available capacity on site, at the EDF Energy Medical Centre and within
accommodation campuses;
advertising and promoting the use of the NHS Health Direct services on-site, at the EDF
Energy Medical Centre and within accommodation campuses; and
providing capacity for family care at the EDF Energy medical centre.
5.8.13
In addition, given that the PCT are currently restructuring and refurbishing GP practices, it is
deemed appropriate to provide a health care planning contribution to support the PCT in the
provision of health care during the peak construction phase.
5.8.14
There is currently no agreed method for calculating a health care planning contribution to local
GP surgeries for a temporary construction workforce. However, one approach would be to apply
the payment to GP by head of population served in Somerset between 2008/09 of £144 per
person.
5.8.15
Applying experience from Sizewell B, and prior to the existing capacity and mitigation listed
above, potentially 30% of the non-home-based workforce will register with a local GP, 25% of
which will have families and possibly 1.9 average children per household. This equates to
1,552.50 people per peak construction year (which is less than a single GP required within a
potential 20 mile radius).
5.8.16
Applying the payments to GPs per head of population of £144, this would equate to £223,560
per peak construction year. Given that such peak rates will not be consistent throughout the
construction phase, it is deemed appropriate that the contribution be paid in four equal annual
instalments of £223,560 each. The first instalment will be paid on the second anniversary of
implementation.
5.8.17
The recommended total health care planning contribution of £894,240 spread over four years
would then be spent by the PCT where they deem additional GP or community nurse support is
appropriate.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 77
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
5.9
The Potential Socio-economic Health Benefits from Direct, Indirect
and Induced Income and Employment
a) Employment, Income and Education
5.9.1
Employment and income are potentially the most significant determinants of long-term health,
influencing a range of factors including the quality of housing, education, diet, lifestyle, coping
skills, access to services and social networks.
5.9.2
As a consequence, poor economic circumstances can influence health throughout life, where
communities subject to socio-economic deprivation are more likely to suffer from morbidity,
injury, suffer from mental anxiety, depression and tend to suffer from higher rates of premature
death than those less deprived (Ref. 49) (Ref. 50) (Ref. 51). As demonstrated in the community
profile, such associations are exhibited within Somerset, particularly within Bridgwater, where
pockets of socio-economic deprivation and a relatively low skills base is closely associated with
higher levels of morbidity and mortality.
5.9.3
Although quantitative methods have been established to demonstrate the health benefit of
employment and income, where a 10% rise in income can reduce the relative risk of mortality
by 0.0035 in men and 0.03 in women, the intensive data requirements (i.e. the need for
information on the relative change of an individual’s pay range) normally limits this assessment
to a qualitative appraisal. Projects with the potential for long-term, stable employment with
opportunities for promotion and advancement through training and experience are therefore
regarded as contributing to improved health and wellbeing.
b) Construction: Off-site Associated Developments
5.9.4
As detailed in the Environmental Appraisal, the delivery of the off-site associated developments
will generate significant direct employment opportunities, including:







5.9.5
The distribution of such direct employment uptake varies, where an evaluation of regional skills
indicates that:

78
600 person years of employment during the construction of the Bridgwater accommodation
campuses;
45 person years of employment during the construction of the Junction 23 park and ride
facility;
60-90 person years of employment during the construction of the Cannington bypass
development;
25 person years of employment during the construction of the Cannington park and ride
development;
20-25 person years of employment during the construction of the Williton park and ride
development; and
15 person years of employment during the construction of the park and ride facility adjacent
to Junction 24 of the M5; and
35-44 person years of employment during the construction of the Combwich Wharf
development.
approximately 30-50% of direct employment opportunities will be sourced within a daily
commutable distance for the Bridgwater developments; and
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL

5.9.6
approximately 50-70% of direct employment opportunities will be sourced within a daily
commutable distance for the Junction 23, Cannington bypass and Combwich Wharf
developments.
In addition, indirect and induced employment and income opportunities are likely to be
experienced at a more local level (i.e. accommodation, services and amenities to serve the
construction activities and staff). On this basis, the off-site associated developments represent
a significant socio-economic health benefit at the local and regional level, and provide an
opportunity to pump prime the local skills base prior to the main development stage at Hinkley
Point.
c) Construction: Main Development
5.9.7
As detailed in the socio-economic assessment, the main development construction phase is
expected to generate approximately 5,000 direct employment positions during the peak
construction phase. As shown in Table 5.9, a number of employment scenarios have been
modelled to establish and support the uptake of local employment opportunities, to define
relative social and health needs, and the subsequent influence on local communities.
Table 5.9: On-site Construction Employment Scenarios
Employee Category
Total Labour
Requirement
(persons)
Local Home Based
Employment
Non-Home-Based
Employment
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Scenario 1: 50% local home based employment
Site Services, security
and clerical
400
90
360
10
40
Professional staff
900
10
90
90
810
Civil operators
1500
50
750
50
750
Mechanical and
electrical operatives
2000
35
700
65
1300
Operational staff
200
50
100
50
100
Total Workforce
5000
40
2000
60
3000
Scenario 2: 40% local home based employment
Site Services, security
and clerical
400
80
320
10
40
Professional staff
900
5
45
5
45
Civil operators
1500
35
525
15
225
Mechanical and
electrical operatives
2000
20
400
15
300
Operational staff
200
30
60
20
40
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 79
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Employee Category
Total Workforce
Total Labour
Requirement
(persons)
Local Home Based
Employment
Non-Home-Based
Employment
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
5000
27
1350
13
650
Scenario 3: 30% local home based employment
Site Services, security
and clerical
400
80
320
20
80
Professional staff
900
7
60
93
840
Civil operators
1500
40
600
60
900
Mechanical and
electrical operatives
2000
22
440
78
1560
Operational staff
200
40
80
60
120
Total Workforce
5000
30
1500
70
3500
Scenario 4: 20% local home based employment
5.9.8
Site Services, security
and clerical
400
65
270
15
60
Professional staff
900
4
35
3
25
Civil operators
1500
30
450
10
150
Mechanical and
electrical operatives
2000
10
200
12
240
Operational staff
200
20
40
20
40
Total Workforce
5000
20
985
10
515
Given the relative skills base in Somerset, and following the community support initiatives
planned, Scenario 2 (40% local home based employment) is considered the most realistic
scenario. Such a scenario represents the creation of approximately 2,000 direct local home
based employment opportunities, and 3,000 regional employment opportunities with
significant socio-economic health benefits. In addition, the indirect and induced income and
employment opportunities required to support the delivery of the facility and meet the needs of
the workforce represents an additional significant contribution to socio-economic health at the
local and regional level.
d) Operation
5.9.9
Once operational, the proposed facility will generate 700 permanent jobs. Assuming a similar
employment distribution currently exhibited at Hinkley B, approximately 94.5% of such
positions will distributed within the three immediate districts. As a consequence, the operation
of the proposed development represents a significant employment opportunities for local
communities, with associated socio-economic health benefits for those individuals.
5.9.10
In addition, approximately 1000 workers will be employed at the site over a period of one
month every year, for repairs, refuelling and maintenance activities. Following experience at
80
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Hinkley B, approximately 90% of the current outage workforce will come from outside of the
three immediate districts. However, these outage periods will generate indirect and induced
income and employment opportunities locally.
5.9.11
On the above basis, the proposed development and off-site associated developments presents
significant socio-economic health benefits at a regional and local level.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 81
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
6
CONCLUSIONS
6.1
Overview
6.1.1
The proposed Development has a number of features that might be considered to have
implications for the health of neighbouring communities. This HIA has examined the extent of
these implications in a manner that considers local circumstance and the best available
scientific evidence.
6.1.2
The following section provides a summary as to the significance and potential distribution of
health effects during construction and operation of the proposed Hinkley Point C Project.
6.2
Assessment Conclusions
a) Construction
6.2.1
Construction of the proposed Hinkley Point C Project including the off-site-associated
developments presents a number of potential health pathways. However, taking into account
the level of emissions (air and noise) generated on site, their intermittent nature/duration and
minimal opportunity for community exposure, the risk to community health is not of a level to
quantify any meaningful adverse health outcome, and will be further managed through bespoke
mitigation through the EMMP.
6.2.2
Prior to mitigation, the most significant risk associated with the construction phase of the
Project is from increased traffic movements and the associated risk of collision. Such risk,
although of low likelihood, will be managed through a dedicated transport strategy and
infrastructure inherently designed to manage potential community disruption and risk.
6.2.3
The introduction of a large non-home-based construction workforce presents a number of social
challenges, including meeting construction workforce entertainment, recreation and health
needs and supporting their integration within the existing community with minimal disruption.
EDF Energy proposes a series of supporting amenities and facilities through the off-site
associated developments to meet such needs. Such provision is currently being refined to offer
the greatest legacy benefit for local communities following the construction phase.
6.2.4
The construction of the proposed Project will generate significant direct, indirect and induced
income and employment at the local and regional level, with subsequent socio-economic health
benefits. EDF Energy proposes to further support the uptake of such benefits locally, by
supporting local education initiatives. Such support, coupled with local employment strategies
will aid in addressing pockets of local socio-economic deprivation and associated pockets of
poor health in the region.
82
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
b) Operation
6.2.5
Once operational, there are few activities with the potential to influence local communities. The
core community concern is the potential risk from radiological exposure. However, following a
review of the available scientific evidence base and a detailed radiological assessment, it is
concluded that for an individual living near to Hinkley Point, the direct health risk from
discharges of radioactivity to the environment will be low, and is significantly within ICRP
Guidelines set to protect health.
6.2.6
Potential emissions to air are limited to the periodic testing of emergency back up generators.
Although dispersion modelling indicates that emission concentrations will be relatively high
during test periods, the frequency and duration of their testing is unlikely to result in any
measurable health outcome.
6.2.7
The operation of the facility will generate a significant number of direct jobs (700) at the site, of
which from experience, the majority are expected to be taken up within the three immediate
districts. The periodic maintenance of the facility will also generate significant income and
employment opportunities (1000 jobs). Although such positions are unlikely to be taken up
locally, they will generate indirect and induced income and employment opportunities within
local communities.
6.2.8
Based upon a review of the technical outputs of the Environmental Appraisal, together with the
application of exposure response mechanisms developed by the Department of Health's
Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), and a detailed radiological
assessment, it is concluded that the proposed Project does not constitute a significant risk to
health from emissions to atmosphere during construction or operation.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 83
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
7
HEALTH ACTION PLAN
7.1
Overview
7.1.1
The following section builds upon the outputs of the previous stages and presents a series of
recommendations geared to:



addressing local circumstances, concerns and needs;
further reducing community disruption and potential health risks; and
enhancing opportunities to improve health through more informed and effective community
support initiatives.
7.2
Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan
7.2.1
During the stakeholder engagement stage, concern was expressed regarding the potential
community disruption during the eight year construction phase, and the need for community
sensitive construction techniques.
7.2.2
In addition, stakeholder participants also indicated the requirement for measures to support
the uptake of local employment and improve education opportunities, including prioritising
local employment and providing local apprenticeship and training during the construction and
operational phases.
7.2.3
It is important to note that such recommendations have already been addressed through the
evolving Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). In particular. The EMMP
sets out specific environmental, social and economic management measures.
7.2.4
The EMMP is currently under development and is being iteratively refined following input from
all of the technical disciplines. A final draft of the EMMP will be submitted as part of the
application for Development Consent.
7.2.5
EDF Energy would implement the measures set out in the agreement EMMP. It is anticipated
that should the proposed development gain consent, EDF Energy will be committed to the
following during the construction of both the on-site and off-site associated developments:



84
Storage sites, fixed plant and machinery, equipment and temporary buildings, will be
located to limit adverse environmental impacts. All reasonable precautions will be taken for
the operation of plant and equipment, to avoid nuisance and excessive noise.
Site entrances/gates will be positioned to minimise traffic congestion and noise transmitted
from site activities and deliveries.
All works will be carried out in such a way as to prevent, contain or limit as far as reasonably
practicable any adverse effects arising from the presence of contaminated material
encountered during the construction activities.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL




A Framework Travel Plan will be developed, taking into account the advice of the Highway
Authority, other relevant local planning authorities, the Police and other emergency
services. It will be reviewed and updated regularly, in line with the construction programme,
and would typically include details of the following:
o traffic and freight control measures; and
o monitoring of construction and operational staff traffic, and where appropriate
amendment of the strategy to further manage disruption and risk to local communities.
The prediction, evaluation and assessment of noise and vibration will be a continuous
activity throughout the project. Construction programmes will be made available in advance
of the construction phase commencing for each development phase. Where the potential
for significant noise or vibration exists, “Best Practicable Means” will be used to reduce
noise to achieve compliance consistent with the recommendations in BS5228, This may
include:
o careful selection of working methods and programme;
o selection of quietest practical working equipment;
o shutting down of equipment when not in use, i.e. maintain a ‘no idling policy’;
o positioning of equipment behind physical barriers, i.e. existing features, recently
constructed structures and hoarding; and
o handling all materials in a manner which minimises noise.
Where the potential for an effect on air quality exists, “Best Practicable Means” will be used
to reduce the impact, including the following control measures as appropriate:
o construction plant will not be left running when not in use;
o any fixed plant and equipment will be located away from sensitive receptors near the
site where practicable;
o effective wheel cleaning will be undertaken of traffic leaving the construction sites onto
public highway roads by the use of wheel washes;
o appropriate construction site speed limits will be established; and
o all vehicles carrying dusty materials into or out of the site will be sheeted to prevent
escape of materials;
Local labour and trade contractor initiatives will be developed to encourage contractors to
undertake on-site training and apprenticeship schemes and to advertise for jobs locally.
7.2.6
EDF Energy will therefore establish a range of measures to addresses the concerns and
recommendations raised during the stakeholder engagement stage. Furthermore, it is
understood that EDF Energy will also provide a complaint hotline to address and respond to
community concerns/complaints rapidly.
7.2.7
A key recommendation of this Health Action Plan (HAP) is following the completion of the final
EEMP, to provide a non-technical summary that can be made available and communicated to
local communities. This document will aid in demonstrating the extent of measures in place to
prevent community disruption, address community concerns and support the uptake of local
health benefits.
7.3
Coordinated Traffic Management and Waste Management Plan
7.3.1
Given the level and duration of construction, it is recommended that a more coordinated
approach to both construction traffic and waste management is established. In this instance, it
is recommended that EDF Energy engages with local authorities to discuss the establishment of
a Construction Liaison Group (CLG). The purpose of the CLG is to coordinate development
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 85
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
programmes and establish opportunities to reuse and recycle appropriate construction
materials at other construction sites to minimise wastes arising. This not only has advantages
in terms of reducing the level and cost of materials sent to landfill, but will also reduce transport
requirements and associated disruption throughout the three immediate districts.
7.4
Community Forum and Community Engagement
7.4.1
There is already a local Hinkley Point Community Forum which provides regular updates as to
activities at the facility. Such engagement will continue, providing local residents with:




7.4.2
It is recommended that, given the extent of the proposed off-site associated developments,
wider community engagement programmes are implemented to offer similar information and
support to communities in proximity to these sites. Potential engagement activities might
include provision of:



7.5
advanced notification as to potentially disruptive construction activities;
updates on construction progress;
updates on community support initiatives and potential employment opportunities; and
feedback on any recorded complaints and how they have been addressed.
A community liaison officer. Such a post would deliver similar feedback to the Community
Forum, respond to local community complaints and where appropriate iteratively refine the
EMMP to address such complaints and support the uptake of local benefits.
Clear communication channels and project information updates. This might include the
provision of a community newsletter, webpage or use of billboards to notify local
communities as to potentially disruptive construction activities, progress and employment
and community support initiatives.
A construction complaint hotline, facilitating the monitoring of complaints and subsequent
actions effectively and transparently (such information to be shared with local communities
and key stakeholders).
Community Support and Integration Initiatives
a) Training and Education
7.5.1
As demonstrated in the community profile, burdens of poor health are closely associated with
pockets of socio-economic deprivation within the area. Given the extent of direct, indirect and
induced income and employment opportunities, there is a significant opportunity to contribute
in addressing such burdens of poor health and inequality. However, a key barrier to such
benefit uptake is the current skills base, particularly within socio-economically deprived
communities identified in the community profile.
7.5.2
There is therefore a requirement to improve the local skills base in order to:




86
further facilitate the uptake of local income and employment opportunities;
aid in addressing pockets of local socio-economic and health deprivation;
aid in retaining the younger age demographic within the area; and
support the delivery of strategic economic and health objectives, through improved
partnerships with local academic institutes and industry.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
7.5.3
It was also noted during the stakeholder engagement stage that EDF Energy also presents an
additional opportunity to raise local awareness and interest in nuclear and sustainable energy
careers.
7.5.4
Key recommendations are therefore geared towards the full academic spectrum, ranging from
local schools through to colleges, higher education support, adult education and the personal
development of existing staff, including:



7.5.5
local school awareness and support programmes, including:
o presentations on the proposed facility and associated construction activities;
o presentations of other EDF Energy projects, including sustainable energy technology;
o field trips to the education centre at Hinkley Point;
o work experience and mentoring programmes; and
o school poster competitions (local schools tasked to generate art for construction
hoarding);
Academic Awards and Sponsorship Programmes, including:
o allocation of community funds for college awards and prize funds for outstanding
academic achievements and most improved students within local schools;
Apprenticeship and employment programmes:
o support local construction skill training centres;
o work with the construction supply chain to support local apprenticeship programmes;
and
o work with local employment agencies to support the uptake of local employment
opportunities.
Recommendations on education and training support programmes are not solely targeted at
EDF Energy, and would benefit from a coordinated effort from wider industry, local authorities
and the Somerset PCT. This will be discussed with the relevant authorities and the conclusions
will be detailed in the application for Development Consent.
b) Lifestyle and Community Health Initiatives
7.5.6
The provision of sports and recreational facilities and amenities alongside green transport
infrastructure presents a significant opportunity to support Somerset PCT in addressing
increasingly sedentary lifestyles of local adults and children. In so doing, the proposed
development will contribute in preventing the prevalence of overweight and obese individuals,
and the associated clinical health outcomes (including increased rates of diabetes,
cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer).
7.5.7
However, additional support is recommended to maximise the potential health legacy benefits,
and to further develop local community relations with both the construction workforce and EDF
Energy. Such initiatives might include strategically located public areas and social capital
(sports, entertainment and recreational facilities) between communities with a high visual
presence in order to encourage use, facilitate integration and design out crime and antisocial
behaviour.
c) Risk Perception Management
7.5.8
Understandably, the provision of a new nuclear facility engenders a number of perceived health
impacts and associated community concerns. However, as outlined in the HIA and in
accordance with the available evidence base, once operational, the project is not anticipated to
present a significant risk to health.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 87
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
7.5.9
Addressing such perceptions can only be achieved by raising awareness as to how community
health is implicitly considered through the design of the plant, and through stringent
environmental regulations and standards set to protect health.
7.5.10
It is therefore recommended that the non-technical summary of this HIA, alongside the literature
review on the available health evidence base be made available locally. Once operational, it is
also recommended that such information be updated, include a Frequently Asked Questions
section and be made available at the Hinkley Point Education Centre and EDF Energy’s website
to further address common community concerns.
d) Scheduling of Diesel Generator Tests
7.5.11
As detailed in the Environmental Appraisal, the emergency back up diesel generators will
require periodic testing. Where possible, it is recommended that the testing of such generators
is scheduled during seasons that offer maximum dispersion away from local communities and
tourist spots. Such scheduling will further manage potential disruption and annoyance to local
communities.
e) Scheduling of Facility Maintenance Periods
7.5.12
As detailed in the Environmental Appraisal, the facility will require periodic maintenance
generating the requirement of circa 1,000 maintenance workers. To reduce potential disruption
and further support local tourism industries, it is recommended to provide sufficient forward
notice to local communities and accommodation facilities to minimise disruption and support
the uptake of local socio-economic benefits.
f)
Monitoring
7.5.13
EDF Energy will be legally required to perform monitoring of facility emissions set to protect the
environment and health. This represents an effective approach to health protection, where
monitoring environmental indictors provides a means to intervene should there be the potential
to result in an adverse health outcome.
7.5.14
It is recommended that EDF Energy makes such monitoring data easily accessible to the general
public in order to transparently demonstrate adherence to the environmental thresholds set to
protect health and to further address community concerns (i.e. to demonstrate compliance with
the findings of the ES, HIA and Planning Requirements).
7.5.15
It is also recommended that EDF Energy regularly engages with and utilises local health
monitoring data routinely collected by the PCT in order to further demonstrate transparency and
address community concerns regarding patterns of poor health in proximity to the Hinkley
Point, including:




88
life expectancy;
respiratory hospital admissions;
cardiovascular hospital admissions; and
cancer prevalence.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
References
1.
Kemm, John. West Midlands Public health Observatory. (October 2007). Critical guide to HIA.
Available at www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=44422 Last accessed June 2010.
2.
Dahlgren, G., and M. Whitehead. (1995). Tackling Inequalities: A Review of Policy Initiatives.
In Tackling Inequalities in Health: An Agenda for Action, eds. M. Benzeval, K. Judge, and M.
Whitehead. London: Kings Fund Institute.
3.
Acheson, Donald. (1998). Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health. The Stationery
Office Report ISBN 0 11 322173 8. Available at www.archive.officialdocuments.co.uk/document/doh/ih/ih.htm Last accessed June 2010.
4.
Office of National Statistics. (2009) Neighbourhood Statistics. Available at
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk last accessed June 2010.
5.
Somerset Intelligence Network. Workers Registration Scheme. Available at www.sine.org.uk/
last accessed June 2010.
6.
Somerset Primary Care Trust and Somerset County Council (October 2008). Somerset Joint
Strategic Needs Assessment and Core Data Set.
7.
Busby C, Dorfman P and Rowe H, (2000) Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point
Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 1- Breast Cancer. Green Audit: Aberystwyth.
http://stophinkley.org/Health/HPCanClustGrnAud.htm
8.
Busby C, Dorfman P and Rowe H, (2000) Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point
Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 2- Prostate Cancer. Green Audit: Aberystwyth.
http://stophinkley.org/Health/HPCanClustGrnAud.htm
9.
Busby C and Rowe H (2002). Cancer in Burnham on Sea North: Results of the PCAH
Questionnaire. Green Audit, Aberystwyth, Occasional Paper 2002/5
10.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2001). COMARE
statement. Further Statement on the Incidence of Childhood Cancer in Wales
11.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2003).
COMARE Statement on Green Audit Occasional Paper 2002/5 Cancer in Burnham on Sea
North: Results of the PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley) Questionnaire
12.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2004). Cancer in
Burnham on Sea North: Results of the PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley)
Questionnaire. www.comare.org.uk/statements/comare_statement_burnham.htm
13.
South West Cancer Intelligence Service September 2003. Cancer Incidence in Burnham North,
Burnham South, Highbridge and Berrow 1990-1999.
14.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2006). Eleventh
Report. The distribution of childhood leukaemia and other childhood cancer in Great Britain
1969-1993. Health Protection Agency, July 2006.
15.
Beland F, Birch S, Stoddart G. (2002). Unemployment and health: contextual-level influences
on the production of health in populations. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:2033-52.
16.
Stafford M, Martikainen P, Lahelma E, Marmot M. (2004). Neighbourhoods and self rated
health: A comparison of public sector employees in London and Helsinki. J Epidemiol
Community Health 2004;58:772-8.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 89
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
90
17.
Van Lenthe FJ, Borrell LN, Costa G, Diez-Roux AV, Kauppinen TM, Marinacci C, Martikainen P,
Regidor E, Stafford M, Valkonen T. (2005). Neighbourhood unemployment and all cause
mortality: a comparison of six countries. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:231-
18.
NHS (2009). Health Survey for England 2007: Healthy lifestyles: knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour. Available at http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/hse07healthylifestyles last accessed June
2010.
19.
DCSF (2009) Every Child Matters Under-18 conception statistics 1998-2007
www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/resources-and-practice/IG00200Last accessed June
2010.
20.
ICRP (1991). 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, ICRP Publication No. 60, Pergamon Press
21.
The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1769).
The regulations are available for download from the DECC website at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/nuclear/radio
activity/government/legislation/justification/justification.aspx
22.
Nuclear Industry Association (2008). Justification Application New nuclear power stations.
23.
Environment Agency (2010). RSR: Principles of optimisation in the management and disposal
of radioactive waste. Version 2. Environment Agency, Bristol.
24.
Hughes JS, Watson SJ, Jones AL and Oatway WB (2005). Review of the radiation exposure of
the UK population. J. Radiol. Prot. 25 493-496
25.
Health Protection Agency (2009). Application of the 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP to the
UK. Documents of the HPA. RCE-12.
26.
Health and Safety Executive (2006). Numerical targets and legal limits in Safety Assessment
Principles for Nuclear Facilities: An explanatory note. HSE, Bootle.
27.
DECC and the Welsh Assembly Government (2009). Statutory Guidance to the Environment
Agency concerning the regulation of radioactive discharges into the environment.
www.decc.gov.uk
28.
ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection ICRP Publication 103 Ann. ICRP 3. Oxford: Elsevier Science
29.
ICRP (1997) Radiological protection policy for the disposal of radioactive waste (Publication
77) Ann. ICRP 27 (suppl)
30.
HSE (1992) The tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations. HMSO, London
31.
ICRP (1997) Radiological protection policy for the disposal of radioactive waste (Publication
77) Ann. ICRP 27 (suppl)
32.
Amec (2010). Environmental Impact Assessment. Technical Note Radiological (CIDEN-002).
15011/TR/00129. Issue 04 – Preliminary. March 2010
33.
EDF (2009). Hinkley Point C Proposed Nuclear Development. Pre-Application Consultation Stage 1: Initial proposals and options, EDF NOVEMBER 2009.
34.
Sedgwick P and Hall A (2003). Teaching medical students and doctors how to communicate
risk. studentBMJ 11 393-436 (available from:
http://archive.student.bmj.com/issues/03/11/editorials/396.php)
35.
Department for Transport (2008). Road Casualties Great Britain 2007: Annual Report. The
Stationary Office (also available as a download from:
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/road
casualtiesgreatbritain20071)
36.
Tornado & Storm Research Organisation (2010). Lightning Impacts. From:
http://www.torro.org.uk/site/lightning_info.php
37.
DoH (1996). On the State of the Public Health: Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of
the Department of Health for the Year 1995. London: HMSO
38.
National Radiological Protection Board (2004). Review of the scientific evidence for limiting
exposure to electromagnetic fields (0-300)GHz). Doc NRPB. 15(3), 1-22.
39.
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (1998) Guidelines for
Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300
GHz)
40.
The World Health Organisation. (2002) Establishing a Dialogue on Risk from EMF. Available at
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/risk_hand/en/index.html last accessed June
2010.
41.
Department of Health. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (2007) available at
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/longtermeffectsmort200
7.htm
42.
Department of Health. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. (2009) Long-Term
Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality. Available at
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/index.htm.
43.
European Commission (2001) Clean Air For Europe available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/index.htm
44.
World Health Organisation. (2000). Evaluation and use of epidemiological evidence for
environmental health risk assessment. Guideline document. Copenhagen: World Health
Organisation Regional Office for Europe.
45.
Department for Transport (2009). Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008.
46.
Department for Transport (2010). Transport Trends: 2009 Edition.
47.
World Heath Organisation (2000). Guidelines for Community Noise.
48.
EDF Energy (2009). Draft Socio-Economic Assessment, February 2010.
49.
Beland F, Birch S, Stoddart G. (2002). Unemployment and health: contextual-level influences
on the production of health in populations. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:2033-52.
50.
Stafford M, Martikainen P, Lahelma E, Marmot M. (2004). Neighbourhoods and self rated
health: A comparison of public sector employees in London and Helsinki. J Epidemiol
Community Health 2004;58:772-8.
51.
Van Lenthe FJ, Borrell LN, Costa G, Diez-Roux AV, Kauppinen TM, Marinacci C, Martikainen P,
Regidor E, Stafford M, Valkonen T. (2005). Neighbourhood unemployment and all cause
mortality: a comparison of six countries. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:231-
52.
EDF (2008). Pre-Construction Environmental Report. UKEPR-0003-110 Issue 01
53.
National Radiological Protection Board (1979). A Model for Short and Medium Range
Dispersion of Radionuclides Released to the Atmosphere (RH Clarke; Chairman of the Working
Group). NRPB-R91
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 91
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
92
54.
European Commission (1995). Methodology for Assessing the Radiological Consequences of
Routine Releases of Radionuclides to the Environment (Simmonds JR, Lawson G and Mayall A).
EUR 15760 EN, Radiation Protection 72
55.
Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Radiological Habits
Survey: Hinkley Point 2006. Public Version, 2007.
56.
NRPB (2003). Generalised Habit Data for Radiological Assessments. (Smith, K.R., and Jones,
A.L.), NRPB-W41.
57.
Environment Agency et al (2009).Radioactivity In Food And The Environment (RIFE)
58.
Byrom J, Robinson C, Simmonds JR, Walters B and Taylor RR (1995). Food consumption rates
for use in generalised radiological dose assessments. J. Radiol. Prot. 15 335
59.
HPA (2005). What is Radiation. Available for download from:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947419144.
60.
Hughes JS, Watson SJ, Jones AL and Oatway WB (2005). Review of the radiation exposure of
the UK population. J. Radiol. Prot. 25 493-496
61.
Watson SJ, Jones AL, Oatway WB and Hughes JS (2005). Ionising Radiation Exposure of the UK
population: 2005 Review. HPA-RPD-001. Available for download from:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1247816567393?p=1
197637096018.
62.
Lindell B, Dunster HJ and Valentin J (undated). International Commission on Radiological
Protection: History, Policies, Procedures. Available for download from:
http://www.icrp.org/docs/Histpol.pdf.
63.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP. http://www.icrp.org/
64.
ICRP (1991). 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, ICRP Publication No. 60, Pergamon Press
65.
ICRP (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection ICRP Publication 103 Ann. ICRP 3. Oxford: Elsevier Science
66.
Wrixon AD (2008) New ICRP recommendations. Review article. J. Radiol. Prot. 28 161–168
67.
ICRP (1996) Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides Part
5: Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Dose Coefficients ICRP Publication 72 Ann. ICRP
26. Oxford: Elsevier Science
68.
ICRP (1997) Radiological protection policy for the disposal of radioactive waste (Publication
77) Ann. ICRP 27 (suppl)
69.
ICRP (2006) Assessing Dose to the Representative Person for the Purpose of Radiation
Protection of the Public and The Optimisation of Radiological Protection: Broadening the
process ICRP Publication 101 Ann. ICRP 36. Oxford: Elsevier Science
70.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
http://www.unscear.org/
71.
HPA (2009). Application of the 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP to the UK. Documents of
the HPA. RCE-12. Available for download from:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1246519363993.
72.
Busby C, Dorfman P and Rowe H, (2000) Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point
Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 1- Breast Cancer. Green Audit: Aberystwyth.
http://stophinkley.org/Health/HPCanClustGrnAud.htm
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
73.
Busby C, Dorfman P and Rowe H, (2000) Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point
Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 2- Prostate Cancer. Green Audit: Aberystwyth.
http://stophinkley.org/Health/HPCanClustGrnAud.htm
74.
Cancer in Burnham on Sea North: Results of the PCAH Questionnaire Busby C, Rowe H Green
Audit Occasional Paper 2002/5.
http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/burnham.htm#ref1#ref1
75.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2001). COMARE
statement. Further Statement on the Incidence of Childhood Cancer in Wales
76.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2003).
COMARE Statement on Green Audit Occasional Paper 2002/5 Cancer in Burnham on Sea
North: Results of the PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley) Questionnaire
77.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2004). Cancer in
Burnham on Sea North: Results of the PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley)
Questionnaire. (http://www.comare.org.uk/statements/comare_statement_burnham.htm)
78.
Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). (2004).
Available at http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_report_e-book.pdf last accessed June 2010.
79.
Black D 1984 Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria.
Report of the Independent Advisory Group (London: HMSO)
80.
COMARE 1986 The implications of the new data on the releases from Sellafield in the 1950s
for the conclusions of the report on the investigation of the possible increased incidence of
cancer in West Cumbria First Report (London: HMSO)
81.
Gardner M J, Snee M P, Hall A J, Powell C A, Downes S and Terrell J D 1990 Results of casecontrol study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant
in West Cumbria. British Medical Journal 300 423–9
82.
Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE), 2004.
www.cerrie.org
83.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (1988). Second
Report. Investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people near
the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment, Caithness, Scotland. HMSO, London
84.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (1996). Fourth
Report. The incidence of cancer and leukaemia in young people in the vicinity of the Sellafield
site, West Cumbria: further studies and an update of the situation since the publication of the
report of the Black Advisory Group in 1984. Department of Health, London
85.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (1999). Sixth
Report. A reconsideration of the possible health implications of the radioactive particles
found in the general environment around the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment in the light of
the work undertaken since 1995 to locate their source. NRPB, Chilton
86.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2002). Seventh
Report. Parents occupationally exposed to radiation prior to the conception of their children.
A review of the evidence concerning the incidence of cancer in their children. NRPB, Chilton
87.
Bithell JF, Dutton SJ, Draper GJ and Neary NM (1994). Distribution of childhood leukaemias
and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas near nuclear installations in England and Wales. BMJ, 309,
501–5
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 93
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
94
88.
Sharp L, Black RJ, Harkness EF and McKinney PA (1996). Incidence of childhood leukaemia
and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the vicinity of nuclear sites in Scotland, 1968–93. Occup
Environ Med, 53, 823–31
89.
Wakeford R (2003) Childhood leukaemia and radiation exposure of fathers—the end of the
road, perhaps? Invited Editorial. J Rad Prot 23 359-362
90.
KAATSCH P; SPIX C; SCHULZE-RATH R; SCHMIEDEL S and BLETTNER M (2008) Leukaemia in
young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. International Journal of
Cancer 122, 721-726
91.
Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M (2008). Case–control study on
childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003. European
Journal of Cancer 44, 275-284
92.
M.L. White-Koning, D. He’mon and D. Laurier et al. (2004). Incidence of childhood leukaemia
in the vicinity of nuclear sites in France, 1990–1998. Br J Cancer 91, 916–922
93.
Evrard A-S, He´mon D, Morin A, Laurier D, Tirmarche M, Backe JC, Chartier M and Clavel J
(2006), Childhood leukaemia incidence around French nuclear installations using geographic
zoning based on gaseous discharge dose estimates. Br J Cancer 94, 1342–1347
94.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2005). Tenth
Report. The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain.
Health Protection Agency, June 2005.
95.
Bithell JT, Keegan TJ, Kroll ME, Murphy MFG and Vincent TJ. (2008). Childhood leukemia near
British Nuclear Installations: Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiation Protection
Dosimetry vol 45:1–7
96.
Kinlen LJ (1988) Evidence for an infective cause of childhood leukemia: comparison of a
Scottish new town with nuclear reprocessing sites in Britain. Lancet ii: 1323–1327
97.
Wartenberg D, Schneider D, Brown S (2004) Childhood leukemia incidence and the
population mixing hypothesis in US SEER data. Br J Cancer 90: 1771–1776
98.
Greaves M (2006) Infection, immune responses and the aetiology of childhood leukaemia.
Nature Reviews Cancer 6, 193–203
99.
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) (2006). Eleventh
Report. The distribution of childhood leukaemia and other childhood cancer in Great Britain
1969-1993. Health Protection Agency, July 2006.
100.
South West Cancer Intelligence Service September 2003. Cancer Incidence in Burnham North,
Burnham South, Highbridge and Berrow 1990-1999
101.
Busby C, Dorfman P and Rowe H, (2000) Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point
Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 1 – Breast Cancer; Part 2 – Prostate Cancer; Part 3- All
Malignancy, Lung Cancer, Stomach Cancer and Summary of Results. Green Audit: Aberystwyth
102.
Busby C and Rowe H (2002). Cancer in Burnham on Sea North: Results of the PCAH
Questionnaire. Green Audit, Aberystwyth, Occasional Paper 2002/5
103.
http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/locationdetail.cfm?locationid=271. Population estimate
based on residents over the age of 15 years. According to Somerset County Council, the
Highbridge and Burnham-On-Sea South wards have a population of 12,832.
104.
http://www.somerset4u.com/somersetTowns/bridgwaterBrief.htm
105.
Weston-Super-Mare Chamber of Trade and Commerce. http://www.westonsupermare.org.
Population estimate based on a revision of 2001 census data.
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
106.
2008 Population Estimates for Bristol. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/CouncilDemocracy/Statistics-Census-Information/population-estimates.en. Based on information
from the Population Estimates Unit, ONS: Crown Copyright 2009
107.
http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/tourism.shtml
108.
Sydenham SRB Trust Evaluation Report, 25 March 2002.
http://download.southwestrda.org.uk/regeneration/urban-and-ruralregeneration/sydenham.pdf
109.
Wartenberg D (2005). Reply: Childhood leukaemia incidence and the population-mixing
hypothesis in US SEER data. British Journal of Cancer 92, 979–980
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 95
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
96
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
APPENDIX A: FINAL HIA SCOPING REPORT
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 97
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
98
| HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
EDF Energy
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station
Health Impact Assessment: Scoping Report
Final
11 February 2010
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
Contents
1
Introduction.....................................................................................1
2
Approach and Methodology ..........................................................2
Figures and Appendices
Tables
Table 2.1: Key Health Pathways to be Assessed ................................................................................... 4
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
1
Introduction
Background
1.1
RPS has been commissioned by EDF Energy to perform a Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
of the proposed Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station suitable for submission as a
supplementary planning document and to inform the Infrastructure Planning Commission
(IPC) process.
1.2
This document constitutes a draft HIA Scoping Report, intended firstly to inform the Local
Authority, the Primary care Trust (PCT) and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) as to the
commissioned HIA, but equally to provide them with the opportunity to comment upon and
refine the scope, focus and core outputs of the assessment.
1.3
This draft document is intended to provide a basis to refining the scope and focus of the HIA,
and as such is not suitable for wider distribution.
1.4
The following sections provide a brief introduction to HIA, outlines the proposed methodology,
core outputs and also present RPS’ capability and experience in undertaking HIAs.
1.5
The remainder of this section provides a brief overview of HIA.
Health Impact Assessment
1.6
Health Impact Assessment is a multidisciplinary process designed to identify and assess the
potential health effects (both adverse and beneficial) of a proposed project, plan or
programme and to deliver evidence based recommendations that maximise health gains and
reduce or remove potential negative impacts or inequalities.
1.7
Although not a regulatory requirement to the UK planning process, HIA is implied under
section 4.8 (Human Health and Wellbeing) and section 4.13 (Demographics) of the Draft
National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), is deemed prudent and
necessary at the project level by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Appraisal of
Sustainability: Site Report for Hinkley Point) and necessary to inform the IPC process.
1.8
In addition, appropriately scoped HIA have proven an effective means to:
•
further separate perceived from actual risks;
•
put potential risk into context to, address perceived risks, to alleviate community health
concerns and to support the decision making process;
•
address community and interest group health concerns before they become a planning
issue;
•
present a balanced assessment (i.e. establishing the magnitude, distribution, duration,
likelihood and significance of both adverse and beneficial health outcomes at the local,
regional and national level); and
•
catalogue how community health is explicitly addressed from the onset of the project.
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
1
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
2
Approach and Methodology
Approach
2.1
The basis of the HIA will be in accordance with current UK guidance and is set on a broad
socio-economic model of health that encompasses conventional health impacts such as
communicable disease, accidents and risk along with wider determinants of health vital to
achieving good health and well-being (thereby also addressing IPC requirements).
2.2
A key aspect of the HIA will be to integrate with and build upon the process and technical
outputs from the Environmental Statement (ES). Such an approach will support consistency
between the HIA and the ES, will prevent needless repetition of effort and ensure a solid
basis to the assessment. However, the final HIA will be delivered as a stand alone document.
In so doing, the HIA will be submitted to inform the decision making process, but can also be
applied as a resource to address and alleviate a range of local community health concerns.
Aim and Objectives
2.3
The HIA is required to:
•
quantify the magnitude, distribution and likelihood of potential health outcomes (both
adverse and beneficial);
•
provide a HIA document suitable for submission as a supplementary planning document
and geared to inform the IPC process; and
•
develop a Health Management Plan to address potential risks, community disruption,
health concerns, and to facilitate the uptake of local health benefits.
Methodology
2.4
Although guidance and a generic HIA process exists, the methods employed in HIA are often
tailored to meet the particular assessment requirements of a project.
2.5
As set out below, the HIA will comprise six key stages including: 1) a scoping exercise; 2) a
project profile; 3) a community profile; 4) key stakeholder engagement; 5) assessment; and 6)
a Health Management Plan.
Stage 1: HIA Scoping Exercise
2.1
This draft Scoping Report constitutes the preliminary stage of the HIA, intended to provide
key stakeholders responsible for the health and wellbeing of local communities the
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
2
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
opportunity to influence the scope and focus of the study. It is also appreciated that such
stakeholders may also have specific outputs they would like the HIA to deliver, to support
them in their role.
2.2
As such, we would encourage you to review this document, and return any comments,
suggestions and anticipated outputs that you would like us to consider.
2.3
Furthermore, we would also welcome any information, studies or transferable knowledge that
you may have that will aid us in defining the current health baseline in the area, local health
needs, and current barriers to the uptake of health benefits.
2.4
Given your existing commitments and respective workloads, we recommended that you send
any comments or suggestions you may have to the HIA Project Manager (Andrew Buroni) via
email.
Email: [email protected]
RPS Planning & Development
6-7 Lovers Walk
Brighton, East Sussex
BN1 6AH
United Kingdom
2.5
Tel:
01273 546 800
Fax:
01273 546 801
Equally, please feel free to call me if you have any queries or wish to discuss the project in
more detail.
Project Profile
2.6
The purpose of the project profile is to identify those relevant features associated with the
proposed development that are potential influences on key determinants of health. The profile
will be compiled through a review of project specific and more generic information including:
•
the Environmental Statement (ES) and associated technical appendices (air quality,
noise, traffic, socio-economic etc); and
•
2.7
consultation with the client and ES project team.
By developing the project profile it is possible to list potential causal pathways, to aid in
refining the development of an appropriate evidence base, to support the development of a
meaningful community profile and to focus the core issues to be assessed.
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
3
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
2.8
At the current scope of work, the key health pathways to be assessed are listed below:
Table 2.1: Key Health Pathways to be Assessed
Feature
Construction
Period
Operational Period
Environment
Health
Pathway
Health
Determinant
Potential
Implication
Distribution
Changes to local air
quality (potential
dust nuisance)
Environment
Adverse
Local
Changes in noise
exposure
Environment
Adverse
Local
Changes in local
transport nature and
flow rates
Transport
Adverse
Local
Increased direct,
indirect and induced
employment
opportunities
Socio-economic
Beneficial
Local
A potential change
in local population
structure from a
potential migrant
workforce, with
potential
implications for local
amenities facilities
and health care
requirements
Demographic
Unclear
Local
A potential change
in communicable
disease exposure
from the temporary
construction
workforce
Public Health
Adverse
Local
A potential change
in social structure
and interactions with
the existing
community,
influencing local
community
resources and
services (including
health care, policing
etc)
Social and Public
Health
Unclear
Local
Direct, indirect and
induced income
employment
opportunities
Socio-economic
Beneficial
Local/Regional
Energy Generation:
meeting energy
demand, and
reducing reliance
upon increasing
energy costs
associated with
diminishing fossil
fuel reserves
Socio economic
Benefit
National
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
4
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
Feature
2.9
Health
Pathway
Health
Determinant
Potential
Implication
Distribution
Energy Generation:
offsetting emissions
from conventional
fossil fuel energy
generation
Environment
Benefit
National
Potential changes in
exposure to
radiation and
radioactive materials
Environment
Adverse
Local/Regional/National
Changes in local
transport nature and
flow rates
Transport
Adverse
Local
Raised awareness,
education and
training
Education / Socioeconomic
Benefit
Local/Regional
In addition to known environmental health pathways, the outputs from the integrated
stakeholder engagement process will be applied to identify and address wider health
concerns within the assessment.
Community Profile
2.10
Evidence suggests that different communities have varying susceptibilities to health impacts
and benefits as a result of social and demographic structure, behaviour and relative economic
circumstance. A community profile therefore not only forms the basis to exposure response
modelling but also allows an insight as to how potential health pathways identified by the
project profile might act disproportionately upon certain communities and sensitive receptors.
2.11
In this case, the community profile will draw from the existing baseline within the socioeconomic assessment, supplemented with small area demographic, health and hospital
admissions data available from the South West Public Health Observatory and PCTs.
Stakeholder Engagement
2.12
An important component of gathering an appropriate evidence base and tailoring the HIA to
local circumstance is seeking the views of stakeholders and key representatives of
communities likely to be affected. By highlighting and responding to community concerns the
HIA can be applied to address perceived as well as actual risks and develop more effective
recommendations to reduce impacts and increase health improvement.
2.13
The HIA will implement a tiered approach, building upon documented community consultation
outputs, incorporating the engagement outputs of the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), supplemented with engagement with appropriate community representatives (including
local interest groups) and individuals responsible for maintaining local community health.
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
5
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
2.14
Specific tiers of engagement include:
•
Review of previous engagement outputs: Stage 1 Consultation is now complete. The HIA
team will review the outputs to identify wider community health concerns to be addressed
through the HIA.
•
HIA Workshop: A HIA workshop will be performed with the local community forum,
representatives of Sedgemoor Homes and if available, individuals from the PCT and the
HPA. The workshop will comprise a project overview, present the scope of the
assessment and provide a platform to further discuss and rank community concerns that
will be assessed within the HIA. The workshop will also be applied to identify potential
community support initiatives.
•
HIA Interview: The HIA team will provide local interest groups with the opportunity to
discuss their health concerns through a structured face to face interview. In so doing it is
possible to catalogue and address their key health issues and any evidence they would
like us to consider through the HIA. Such an approach provides a means to separate and
address perceived and actual risks through the application of a robust scientific evidence
base.
2.15
Such a tiered approach provides a means to investigate and address a wide range of
community concerns within the HIA, to focus key issues with key community and health
stakeholders, and further informs the development of a bespoke Health Management Plan
tailored to local requirements and circumstances.
Assessment
2.16
The assessment stage draws upon appropriate technical topic areas within the EIA to ensure
the HIA is based upon realistic changes in environmental conditions as a consequence of the
construction and operation of the proposed nuclear power station.
2.17
The assessment will seek to address each of the core health pathways identified and the
community perceived risks during the project profile and stakeholder engagement stage, and
where possible, apply internationally recognised quantitative assessment methods to
establish the distribution, significance and likelihood of worst-case potential health outcomes.
However, as a minimum the assessment will include:
•
quantitative risk assessment based on changes in exposure to radiation and radioactive
materials, set in the context of recognised constraints, targets and limits, and naturally
occurring environmental exposure;
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
6
JAS5807
Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station HIA
•
quantitative exposure response modelling for changes in PM10, PM2.5 and NO2 exposure
during construction and operation (quantifying changes in life expectancy and local
cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions);
•
quantitative risk assessment from changes in construction and operational road traffic
movements (risk of collisions directly attributed to the proposed development), disruption
and community severance;
•
qualitative appraisal as to community disruption, annoyance and potential health outcome
from changes in construction and operational noise; and
•
qualitative appraisal as to the socio-economic health benefits from direct, indirect and
induced income and employment opportunities.
2.18
Where appropriate, the HIA will apply the cumulative impact assessment outputs from EIA to
determine the distribution, magnitude, likelihood and significance of cumulative impacts on
community health.
2.19
Given the likely health pathways to be investigated, the geographic scope of the HIA will have
a local, regional and national focus where appropriate. Please note that although the HIA will
discuss the emissions offset from coal and gas fired power stations, the potential influence on
health impact from climate change is very broad, and will not be addressed within the scope
of the HIA.
Health Management Plan
2.20
A Health Management Plan (HMP) expands upon the normal recommendations section
within HIA guidance, establishing recommended protocols and monitoring regimes to be
implemented during construction and operation to further reduce and remove potential
negative health impacts, while maximising opportunities to increase the uptake of health
benefits.
RPS Planning & Development – Brighton Office
O:\Jobs_5000-6000\5807s\Scoping Report\Final\5807s_HIA Proposal_Report_Final_120210c.doc
11th February
Final
7
JAS5807
APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 109
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
110 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Somerset Primary Care Trust Interview Transcript
Organisation
Somerset Primary Care Trust
Participants
Consultant in Public Health
Public Health Specialist
Head of Public Health Intelligence
Interviewer
Andrew Buroni
Senior HIA Consultant
Date/Time
01/03/10
13:00 - 14:00
Venue
Wynford House, Lufton Way, Yeovil BA22 8HR
Agenda Points
 RPS’ HIA experience
 HIA Scope and Focus
 Key health issues associated with the proposed development
 Key health opportunities associated with the proposed development
 Current burden of health, existing health issues and needs
 Transferable knowledge
Interview
Summary
The participants indicated that the HIA objectives must include the following key
elements:
 health risk assessment and management (details provided in transcript
notes);support local health promotion; and
 address community perceived risks and associated health concerns.
Transcript
notes
RPS’ HIA Experience
A brief overview as to the HIA team’s background, experience and key projects.
Participants inquired as to the HIA team’s particular experience on radiological
projects, experience in health promotion and sexual health (in terms of the
introduction of a large construction workforce to relatively small communities).
The radiological expertise of the team was conveyed, as was the HIA team’s
experience on large infrastructure projects internationally (oil and gas) and in the UK
(the London Olympic Games, Stansted, London City, Birmingham and Belfast airport).
HIA Scope and Focus
The founding principles of the HIA were discussed, as were the key stages and
methods to be applied. The current focus of the assessment was discussed by
sharing the key health pathways identified to date. Such pathways were then further
discussed and supplemented with the following potential health pathways:
Health Pathway
Description
Construction Workforce
The introduction of a large mobile workforce has
the potential to:
 change local demographic, ethnic and sociocultural structure, the impact of which on
health and community cohesion is unclear.
Adverse outcomes may include poor
integration and antisocial behaviour, while
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 111
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Organisation
Somerset Primary Care Trust
good integration has the potential to improve
local community infrastructure, and social
capital (i.e. the legacy of construction
workforce amenities and facilities);
 influence communicable disease (including
STI) and substance misuse;
 depending on the relative demographic of the
workforce, will have specific health,
recreational and entertainment requirements to
maintain good health (what is the construction
workforce lifestyle policy);
 increase local health care demand, and
depending on EDF Energy occupational health
care provision, may temporarily reduce health
care access and accessibility to existing
communities.
A local training and employment strategy has the
potential to:
 improve local income and employment
opportunities, addressing relative deprivation
and health inequalities;
The increased demand for local employment has
the potential to:
 increase local construction workforce demand
and potentially impact upon other regeneration
and industry developments.
Housing
Depending on the housing strategy, the
introduction of a large construction workforce has
the potential to increase housing demand,
temporarily reducing local community access to
housing, and in particular access to good and
affordable housing. This has the potential to
adversely impact upon the health and wellbeing
of local communities, and the socio-economically
deprived in particular.
In contrast, the legacy of the construction
workforce accommodation and supporting
recreational and leisure facilities has the potential
to improve the quality, affordability and stock of
housing in the area. Such provision should
implement healthy urban design to foster healthy
and vibrant communities.
Electro Magnetic Fields
112 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Participants expressed that local communities are
concerned of potential health impacts from
exposure to EMF, and that this is recommended to
be addressed within the HIA.
Organisation
Somerset Primary Care Trust
Road Collision
Participants expressed the requirement to
complement existing road calming and safety
features to improve road safety in the area during
both construction and operation.
Operational Risk
Participants indicated that the potential health
risks associated with the operation of the facility
are radiological, and that the HIA is required to
address local community concerns and interest
group concerns. Participants then discussed the
health studies available through the PCT and the
Public Health Observatory to support the
assessment of this particular health pathway.
Health promotion
Participants indicated that the proposed
development has the potential to support local
health promotion, and recommended that the HIA
investigate such opportunities. In particular,
participants inquired:
 as to how the proposed facility might impact
upon areas of and access to green space and
recreation facilities during construction and
operation; and
 if the proposed development would increase or
enhance areas of and access to green space
and recreational facilities.
Current burden of health, existing health issues and needs
The local burden of poor health was discussed as where existing pockets of health
inequality. Participants discussed the key PCT and PHO documents to draw from, and
indicated that the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) would be a key document
to inform the community profile and local health priorities/objectives.
In regards to community health needs, participants indicated that the quality and
availability of housing in the area is relatively poor and would benefit from some
additional community support, and that it is important for the HIA to address
perceived risks in order to address local community health concerns.
Transferable Knowledge
Key PCT and PHO documents were discussed, it was recommended that the HIA team
engage with Julia Verne at the PHO to identify wider studies transferable to the HIA.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 113
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Somerset County Council Interview Transcript
Organisation
Somerset County Council
Participants
Somerset County Council
Interviewer
Andrew Buroni
Senior HIA Consultant
Date/Time
03/03/10
16:00 - 17:00
Venue
Telephone Interview
Agenda Points
 RPS HIA experience
 HIA Scope and Focus
 Key health issues associated with the proposed development
 Key health opportunities associated with the proposed development
 Transferable knowledge
Interview
Summary
Indicated that the primary community health concern is that of the radiological impact
of the proposed development, requested information on the radiological assessment
methodology (in particular the critical groups to be applied), and that the cumulative
impact from Hinkley A, B and C be assessed.
Transcript
notes
RPS HIA Experience
A brief overview as to the HIA teams background, experience and key projects.
HIA Scope and Focus
The founding principles of the HIA were discussed, as were the key stages and
methods to be applied. The current focus of the assessment was discussed by
sharing the key health pathways identified to date. Such pathways were then further
discussed and supplemented with the following potential health pathways:
Health Pathway
Description
Radiological
Potential changes in radiological exposure from the
proposed Hinkley Point C development and the
cumulative impact from Hinkley Point A and B are the
key health concern.
More information is required on the critical groups to be
applied during the radiological Health Impact Appraisal
to provide more context as to the distribution and
magnitude of effect on local community groups (Shurton
and Burton).
Electro Magnetic Fields
The potential health issues from changes in EMF
exposure are to be investigated.
Off-site Associated
Development
The acute and chronic health effect from construction
noise and vibration, transport and relative changes in air
quality (dust and emissions exposure) are to be
investigated.
Cumulative risk
The cumulative impacts between Hinkley A, B and C
need to be investigated, as do the cumulative impacts
between the various off-site developments.
114 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Organisation
Somerset County Council
Alyn further indicated that the HIA has to be based upon a realistic change in
environmental and socio-economic conditions directly attributed to the proposed
development (requiring significant integration with the technical outputs of the
Environmental Impact Assessment), and not policy aspirations.
Transferable Knowledge
Alyn indicated that the HIA would benefit from reviewing local strategic objectives in
order to support the development of a balanced assessment and to support the
delivery of such objectives through the Health Action Plan.
Arup Interview Transcript
Organisation
Arup representing Sedgemoor District and West Somerset Councils
Participants
Arup Associate
Arup HIA Consultant
Interviewer
Andrew Buroni
Senior HIA Consultant
Laura Jones
Senior Consultant
Date/Time
05/03/10
10:30 - 12:30
Venue
Telephone Interview
Agenda Points
 RPS HIA experience
 HIA Scope and Focus
 Arup general comments
 key health issues associated with the proposed development
 key health opportunities associated with the proposed development
 transferable knowledge
Interview
Summary
Participants indicted that they have been appointed by Sedgemoor District and West
Somerset Councils to support and advise on the technical delivery of the application.
Participants from Arup discussed their own HIA experience and capacity, including
their involvement in the HIA of the third Runway at Heathrow Airport and their
networks with leading HIA practitioners (including Ben Cave). Such experience
provided the platform to discussing the scope, focus and specific methods to be
employed during the HIA to support the proposed development.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 115
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Organisation
Arup representing Sedgemoor District and West Somerset Councils
Transcript notes
RPS HIA Experience
Involved a general discussion of RPS and Arup’s HIA experience, key projects and
how to deliver HIA suitable for submission as supplementary planning documents.
HIA Scope and Focus
The founding principles of the HIA were discussed, as were the key stages and
methods to be applied. Individual methods including the radiological assessment,
traffic risk assessment and air quality exposure response assessment were briefly
discussed.
The current focus of the assessment was discussed by running through the
individual health pathways presented in the HIA scoping report. This also provided a
means to address Arup’s general comments.
General Comments
Following a review of the HIA scoping report, Arup suggested that:
 There needs to be a more detailed project description to set the context of the
project and its assessment. It was agreed that for the purpose of scoping, the
information provided was sufficient and that the project profile stage of the full
HIA will address this general comment (building from the refined project
description and the technical outputs of the ES).
 That the individual health pathways were not fully discussed. It was agreed that
for the purpose of scoping, the information provided was sufficient to establish
the key health concerns to date, and aid in gaining additional health pathways to
be investigated from key stakeholders (without leading responses).
 That the HIA should build from parallel and related policy to better set the context
of the assessment and support the delivery of strategic objectives.
Participants expressed that key stakeholder health concerns include:
Health Pathway
Description
Radiological
The potential change in radiological exposure and
subsequent risk to health.
Electro Magnetic Fields and
Interference (EMF and EMI)
The potential change in EMF exposure and
subsequent risk to health. Potential EMI impacts
were also raised.
Fugitive emissions
The potential change in air quality and
subsequent impact on local communities (during
construction).
The potential noise impact on community health
and wellbeing (on-site and at off-site associated
developments).
Community severance
Potential impact on local roads, pedestrian routes
and access to areas of green space, amenities,
facilities and social networks during construction
and operation.
Visual impacts
The potential impact on amenity value and use.
116 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Organisation
Arup representing Sedgemoor District and West Somerset Councils
Income and employment
The distribution, barriers to and likely uptake of
local income and employment opportunities
(participants indicated that a 50% local
employment uptake is unlikely).
Health care and emergency
services
Additional information is required to investigate
the potential impact of the proposed development
on health care capacity and emergency services
during both construction and operational phases.
Participants suggested a number of potential community support initiatives that
could be considered within the Health Action Plan, including:
 the potential provision of health and emergency service on site during
construction to avoid impacting upon local health care capacity;
 potentially expanding temporary drop in surgery to the general public to improve
access and accessibility to local health care;
 designing elements of the off-site associated development to provide legacy
health care facilities (i.e. design drop in surgeries for the construction workforce to
be suitable for community use)
Such recommendations need to be discussed with the PCT and consider the PCT
Estate Strategy to ensure that they are viable and do not conflict with the general
move away from small satellite health surgeries for more effective polyclinics or
temporary facilities taken away.
Participants further expressed the requirement to investigate the emergency
response plan during construction and operation of the proposed facility (including
helicopter emergency response plans). However, such planning is typically beyond
the influence of HIA (i.e. occupational health and emergency planning).
Transferable Knowledge
Participants indicated the value of the HIA consultants attending the Strategic
Officers Group meeting (09/03/10), to raise awareness as to the HIA, and gain their
input on refining the scope and focus of the HIA.
Participants further expressed the requirement to draw from the Local Area
Agreement (LAA) to establish strategic priorities and objectives, and further support
their delivery through the Health Action Plan.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 117
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
South West Public Health Observatory Interview Transcript
Organisation
South West Public Health Observatory (SWPHO)
Participants
Deputy Regional Director of Public Health and SWPHO Director
Interviewer
Andrew Buroni
Senior HIA Consultant
Date/Time
10/03/10
15:00 - 16:00
Venue
Telephone Interview
Agenda Points
 RPS HIA experience
 HIA Scope and Focus
 Key health issues associated with the proposed development
 Key health opportunities associated with the proposed development
 Transferable knowledge
Interview
Summary
Indicated that key health concerns are more actively voiced through regional and
national interest groups than local communities. The PHO has extensively studied
such health concerns and concluded that the burden of poor health in the region is
not associated with power stations, but more closely linked to pockets of socioeconomic deprivation.
Key health pathways included the potential impact of the construction workforce on
local communities and associated health care capacity, the potential risk from
increased transport movements and the potential health benefits from income and
employment and legacy infrastructure.
Transcript notes
RPS’ HIA Experience
A brief overview as to the HIA teams background, experience and key projects was
provided.
HIA Scope and Focus
The founding principles of the HIA were discussed, as were the key stages and
methods to be applied. Key PHO health pathways were similar to the PCT and
included a balance of health risk management, health promotion and addressing
community concerns.
Health Pathway
Description
Construction Workforce
The introduction of a large construction workforce has
the potential to influence the health profile of local
communities and reduce access to local health care.
The relative demographic of the workforce will also
define the type of health care requirement in the area
(i.e. depending on the age and sex of the workforce will
influence the type of health care they will require).
In addition to health care, there may also be a
requirement to consider wider community services
including the potential impact on schools (i.e. if workers
bring their families).
118 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Organisation
South West Public Health Observatory (SWPHO)
Transport
The proposed development should focus on addressing
potential impacts upon access and accessibility, and
where possible support and enhance active modes of
transport within the communities.
The proposed development seeks to minimise the
associated health risk from road traffic movements.
Where possible it is recommended to support wider
transport initiatives in the area to maximise road safety
and improve the uptake of physical health benefits
through active transport modes.
Access and accessibility to areas of green and open
space plays a key role in maintaining healthy
communities by increasing the level of physical activity.
Occupational Health
and Safety
Despite occupational health and safety procedures and
best practice, construction sites remain hazardous work
environments. Although typically beyond the remit of
HIA, it is recommended to establish the health and
safety procedures EDF Energy will implement.
Radiological
The radiological assessment will prove useful in further
addressing local community health concerns.
Legacy opportunities
The off-site associated developments represent legacy
benefits to local communities in terms of infrastructure
and in encouraging improvements in lifestyle (namely
increased physical activity). Such opportunities will
need to be further investigated and barriers to health
benefits addressed.
Crime and antisocial
behaviour
The introduction of a large construction workforce may
have implications for poor integration with local
communities and represents a potential risk of
antisocial behaviour.
Transferable Knowledge
Discussed the various studies they have performed to investigate potential health
risks from the existing facilities, and to address community and interest health
concerns.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 119
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
APPENDIX C: RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND
SUPPORTING HEALTH EVIDENCE BASE
120 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 121
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.1 Assessed Doses to the Critical Group
A.C.1.1
Based on the approach outlined in Section 5, the following doses to the local community
‘critical group’ are estimated. We have not undertaken an independent predictive assessment
of doses to members of the public based on mathematical modelling. However, we have
reviewed the methods adopted by EDF Energy (Ref. 52) and Amec (Ref. 32) and confirm that
they represent reasonable approaches. We also confirm that the models and assumptions put
forward by EDF Energy and Amec are appropriate and are based on widespread approaches
adopted within the UK.
a) Modelling
i)
Stage 1 Assessment
A Stage 1 assessment was undertaken by EDF Energy (Ref. 52) as part of the Pre-Construction
Environmental Assessment submitted for the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) carried out by
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency to assist the licensing
process. This report is based on a single unit EPR.
A.C.1.2
A Stage 1 assessment is intentionally highly conservative. For releases to air, the total
assessed dose reported by EDF Energy (2008) was 72.8 μSv per y, mainly attributable to
carbon-14 (almost 85%), based on habitation and consumption of locally produced foods. For
liquid discharges to the coastal/estuarine environment the total assessed dose was 60 μSv per
y, again mainly attributable to carbon-14 (almost 73%), based on high rate seafood
consumption and habits associated with the fishing community (residency, handling of gear
etc).
A.C.1.3
The dose rate from direct radiation was estimated based on a maximum permissible dose rate
to a member of the public of 1 mSv per y in the immediate vicinity of the facility buildings and
then determining a distance to the nearest habitable location (assumed to be 100m). On this
basis, the annual dose from direct radiation from an EPR station to the critical group is
estimated as 5.5 μSv.
A.C.1.4
Recognising that it is possible that a high rate seafood consumer (i.e. the fishing family) may
also be local residents consuming locally grown foodstuffs, it is appropriate for a Stage 1
assessment to sum the doses from all release routes to estimate a potential critical group dose
of 138.3 μSv per y. EDF Energy (Ref. 52) noted that this exceeds the 20 μSv per year criterion
referred to previously I, and indicates that a Stage 2 assessment is appropriate.
ii)
A.C.1.5
Stage 2 Assessment
EDF Energy (Ref. 52) also presented a more refined Stage 2 assessment for a single unit EPR.
Based on the same discharge information, gaseous effluents are assumed to be discharged via
a stack with an effective height of 20 mII. Liquid discharges are assumed to mix with a
I
In this case, EA guidance retains the link to a dose estimate of 20 μSv per year as the level at which further detailed
assessment is required, because of the joint agency guidance with SEPA and its application to Scotland as well as
England and Wales.
II
Amec (2010) also reported a Stage 2 assessment, assuming an effective stack height of 30 m, but otherwise citing
the same assumptions as EDF (2008). They concluded that the estimated doses were above 20 μSv per year, which
is consistent with the indication that a Stage 3 detailed site specific assessment was necessary. Note that the
effective stack height is not the same as the actual stack height. Depending on a number of factors, including
topography, it is conventional (in the absence of better information) to assume an effective stack height around 1/3
of the actual stack height for the purposes of dispersion modelling.
122 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
volumetric exchange rate of 130 m3 s-1. Both assumptions are considered to be conservative
(i.e. they will not underestimate the resultant impact).
A.C.1.6
Potential doses due to gaseous releases were assessed for ingestion, inhalation and external
exposure pathways. The total dose from all pathways combined was assessed to be 11.4 μSv
per y.
A.C.1.7
Potential doses due to liquid discharges were assessed for ingestion and external exposure
pathways. The total dose from all pathways combined was assessed to be 46.1 μSv per y.
A.C.1.8
The annual dose from direct radiation was assessed in the same way as in the Stage 1
assessments, with the critical group assumed to be living 100 m from the reactor building and
receiving 5.5 μSv per y.
A.C.1.9
Recognising that it is possible that a high rate seafood consumer (i.e. the fishing family) may
also be local residents consuming locally grown foodstuffs, it is appropriate for a Stage 2
assessment to sum the doses from all release routes to estimate a potential critical group dose
of 63 μSv per y. This is again conservative estimate, but indicates that a Stage 3 assessment is
appropriate.
iii) Stage 3 Assessment: Pre-Construction Environmental Assessment Undertaken by EDF
Energy in the GDA
A.C.1.10 EDF Energy (Ref. 52) presented a Stage 3 assessment, again based on conservative
assumptions for a single EPR unit.
A.C.1.11 The methodology applied by EDF Energy was based on the use of the PC CREAM 98 software
tool (Ref. 53). PC CREAM comprises a suite of 6 programmes (ASSESSOR, DORIS, PLUME,
FARMLAND, RESUS, and GRANIS) for modelling the transfer of radionuclides through the
environment and calculating the dose to individuals and the population from exposure to these
nuclides. PC CREAM is a standard assessment tool used extensively in the UK and elsewhere.
A.C.1.12 For the purposes of the assessment, all discharges were assumed to be continuous, at a
uniform annual rate, and to continue for 50 years. This allows for any build-up in the
environment which may occur over the operating lifetime of a facility. The specific assumption
of 50 years is standard practice within many assessments.
A.C.1.13 Site specific characteristics were defined to provide a better (but still conservative)
representation of conditions prevailing around Hinkley Point, with respect to dispersion of both
liquid and gaseous discharges, habitation distances from sites, weather conditions etc.
A.C.1.14 For the aerial discharges pathways, the public receptor and food receptor points were selected
from the nearest potential property and farmland to a new reactor site. Both points are located
500 m from the gaseous discharge point. The effective stack height was assumed to be 20 m,
as described for the Stage 2 assessment. A uniform windrose was assumed at 70% Pasquill
stability category D, which is typical of coastal UK (Ref. 53). Standard washout coefficients and
deposition velocities were applied and a surface roughness typical of agricultural areas
selected (Ref. 54).
A.C.1.15 For the dispersion of liquid discharges, the local waters, known as the ‘local compartment’,
were defined based on the most restrictive value for each parameter for each of the potential
sites included as standard within the PC CREAM model. This results in the lowest dispersion
and highest activity concentration within the waters of interest.
A.C.1.16 Site characteristics assumed by EDF Energy (Ref. 52) for the GDA are summarised below.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 123
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.1: Site Characteristics Assumed for the Stage 3 GDA Assessment
Site Characteristics
Parameter Value
Public Receptor Point aerial discharges (m)
500
Food Production receptor point (m)
500
Site boundary (m)
100
Windrose
uniform
Pasquill stability category
70 % D
Effective Stack height (m)
20
Deposition velocity (m s-1)
1 10-3, 1 10-2 (I), 0 (noble)
Washout coefficient (s-1)
1 10-4
Surface roughness (m)
0.3
Marine module
Irish Sea
Regional compartment
Cumbrian Waters
Local compartment volume (m3)
3 108
Local compartment depth (m)
20
Local compartment coastline length (m)
3 104
Local compartment volumetric exchange rate (m3 y-1)
1.1 1010
Local compartment suspended sediment load (t m-3)
5 10-6
Local compartment sediment rate (t m-2 y-1)
1 10-2
Local compartment sediment density (t m-3)
2.6
Local compartment bioturbation rate (m2 y-1)
3.6 10-5
Local compartment diffusion rate (m2 y-1)
3.15 10-2
124 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.1.17 On this basis, the ‘farming family’ were estimated to receive doses of 4.0, 4.4 and 7.8 μSv per y
for adults, children and infants respectively.
A.C.1.18 Doses to the most exposed members of a ‘fishing family’, where the adults spend time fishing
near the coast and the children and infants spend time playing on the coast, were estimated to
be 17, 4.7 and 1.5 μSv per y for adults, children and infants respectively.
A.C.1.19 In order to determine the most exposed members of the public from all discharges, EDF Energy
(Ref. 52) considered three scenarios:



a ‘farming family’ also consuming locally sourced seafoods at average rates;
a ‘fishing family’ also consuming locally sourced terrestrial foods at average rates; and
a ‘local resident’ exposed to liquid and atmospheric discharges.
A.C.1.20 For the farming family consuming also seafood, the doses to adults, children and infants were
estimated to be respectively 5.9, 5.6 and 8.8 μSv per y.
A.C.1.21 For the fishing family consuming also terrestrial food, the doses to adults, children and infants
were estimated to be respectively 18, 6.3 and 3.8 μSv per y.
A.C.1.22 For the local resident, the doses to adults, children and infants were estimated to be
respectively 21, 9.1 and 9.3 μSv per y.
A.C.1.23 For the Stage 3 assessment, EDF Energy (Ref. 52) assumed that direct exposure to radiation
from the reactor building for members of the public will be negligible, as the shielding present
will ensure contact dose rates with the building are below limits of detection, and would
definitely not be measurable at the site boundary. However, exposure to direct radiation from
waste stores may give rise to a direct radiation dose for a member of the public. The receptor
point which EDF Energy (Ref. 52) considered corresponds to the most exposed member’s
location which is located 500 m from the site, with a maximum predicted exposure of 5 μSv per
year.
A.C.1.24 It is reasonable to assume that the most exposed members of the public may also be exposed
to the direct radiation. The conservative dose assessment is thus obtained by summing the
dose to the local resident with the direct radiation dose. On this basis, the ‘critical group’
doses to adults, children and infants are respectively 25.8, 11.6 and 11 μSv per y.
iv) Stage 3 Assessment – Refined Assessment undertaken by Amec for the Hinkley Site
A.C.1.25 Amec (Ref. 32) undertook a further refined assessment of the potential impacts arising from the
proposed twin reactors at Hinkley Point C. This assessment is based on predicted discharges to
the environment, together with conservative assumptions relating to dispersion and uptake
pathways. Site characteristics assumed by Amec are summarised below.
Table A.C.2: Site Characteristics Assumed for the Stage 3 Assessment undertaken by Amec for
the Hinkley Site
Site Characteristics
Parameter Value
Public Receptor Point aerial discharges (m)
1650 m
Food Production receptor point (m)
1650 m
Site boundary (m)
Windrose
Site specific (based on data for
2004-2008)
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 125
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Site Characteristics
Parameter Value
Pasquill stability category
Site specific (based on data for
2004-2008)
Effective Stack height (m)
23.3
Deposition velocity (m s-1)
1 10-3, 1 10-2 (I), 0 (noble)
Washout coefficient (s-1)
1 10-4
Surface roughness (m)
0.3
Marine module
Bristol Channel
Regional compartment
Bristol Channel
Local compartment volume (m3)
5 109
Local compartment depth (m)
20
Local compartment coastline length (m)
3 104
Local compartment volumetric exchange rate (m3 y-1)
1 1011
Local compartment suspended sediment load (t m-3)
2 10-4
Local compartment sediment rate (t m-2 y-1)
1 10-4
Local compartment sediment density (t m-3)
2.6
Local compartment bioturbation rate (m2 y-1)
3.6 10-5
Local compartment diffusion rate (m2 y-1)
3.15 10-2
A.C.1.26 The following paragraphs summarise information presented by Amec (Ref. 32), with further
commentary where necessary.
A.C.1.27 The following table shows the maximum estimated activities expected in liquid discharges from
HPC.
126 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.3: Maximum Predicted Liquid Discharges from Hinkley Point C
Radionuclide
Annual Liquid Discharge rates
GBqy-1
H-3
150,000
C-14
190
Ag-110m
1.14
Mn-54
0.54
Sb-124
0.98
Sb-125
1.630
Te-123m
0.52
I-131
0.1
Cr-51
0.12
Co-58
4.14
Co-60
6
Cs-134
1.12
Cs137
1.890
Ni-63
1.92
A.C.1.28 Liquid discharges are carried out in the form of batches from holding tanks but take place at the
outlet of the main turbine cooling water culverts, so are subject to an immediate dilution with
sea water of the order of 130 m3 s-1 before entering the final outfall system where thorough
mixing takes place prior to the discharged material finally entering the sea.
A.C.1.29 All major gaseous discharges from each EPR will be monitored prior to discharge to the
atmosphere III. The table below shows the maximum estimated activities expected in gaseous
discharges from HPC.
III
There are several minor sources (ILW, SNF ISF and laundry) that have discharge points that are not monitored). The
contributions of any potential discharges from these sources are included within the estimate of maximum
predicted discharges.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 127
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.4: Air and Soil Concentration at the Off Site Location with the Highest Concentration
at Year 60 from Hinkley Point C Discharges
Nuclide
Air Concentration Bqm-3
Soil Concentration Bq kg-1
H-3
3.6 10-01
-
C-14
8.3 10-02
-
Ar-41
7.7 10-02
-
Co-58
3.6 10-06
8.8 10-05
Co-60
4.3 10-06
2.3 10-03
Kr-85
3.7 10-01
-
I-131
2.1 10-05
4.8 10-04
I-133
2.6 10-05
6.3 10-05
Xe-131m
8.0 10-03
-
Xe-133
1.7 10+00
-
Xe-135
5.3 10-01
-
Cs-134
3.3 10-06
7.6 10-04
Cs-137
3.0 10-06
5.9 10-03
A.C.1.30 It is further assumed that the ‘Farming Family’ consumption rates (based on the most recent
CEFAS (Ref. 55) consumption data for the Hinkley Point Site) for terrestrial foods are calculated
based on the ‘Top Two’ approach. In the ‘Top Two’ approach, the two foodstuffs, that result in
the highest ingestion dose (when all foodstuffs are modelled as consumed at critical rates), are
assumed to be consumed at critical rates and all other foodstuffs at average rates. In this
instance, the ‘Top Two’ foodstuffs were found to be: milk and root vegetables for adults, and
milk and milk products for child and infant age groups. This family is also assumed to consume
locally sourced seafoods at mean CEFAS (Ref. 55) ingestion rates. It is assumed that members
of this family can also be exposed to marine discharges through external exposure to beach
sediments and the inhalation of seaspray, whilst spending time recreationally on the beach.
A.C.1.31 The predicted doses to this ‘Farming Family with marine and gaseous exposure’ were calculated
to be 2.7, 2.5 and 4.5 μSv y-1 for the adult, child and infant respectively.
A.C.1.32 The fishing family represents the candidate critical group who may be exposed to radiation and
radioactivity from discharges into the marine environment and via terrestrial pathways.
Predicted concentrations of radionuclides in the marine environment around Hinkley Point,
arising from Hinkley Point C discharges, were predicted by Amec (Ref. 32) as follows.
128 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.5: Activity Concentration in the Seawater and Seabed Sediments off the Coast of
Hinkley Point at Year 60 from Hinkley Point C Discharges
Nuclide
Activity Concentrations in
Unfiltered Seawater (Bq l-1)
Activity Concentrations in Seabed
Sediment (Bq kg-1)
H-3
1.57 10+00
1.07 10+00
C-14
2.00 10-03
1.19 10-01
Mn-54
5.34 10-06
4.03 10-05
Ni-63
2.01 10-05
3.60 10-03
Cr-51
8.28 10-07
5.28 10-07
Co-60
6.20 10-05
2.56 10-03
Co-58
3.56 10-05
6.20 10-05
Ag-110m
1.12 10-05
1.17 10-05
Sb-124
8.21 10-06
2.10 10-06
Sb125
1.68 10-05
6.60 10-05
Te-125m*
1.05 10-06
6.55 10-05
Te-123m
4.81 10-06
2.44 10-06
Te-123 *
2.16 10-20
5.86 10-18
Cs-134
1.15 10-05
7.73 10-05
Cs-137
1.98 10-05
9.88 10-04
I-131
3.89 10-07
4.46 10-09
Key
* Indicates a Daughter Product
A.C.1.33 The radiation exposure to the same three age groups as the ‘Farming Family with marine and
gaseous exposure’ (above) was determined. As for that candidate critical group, exposure to
gaseous discharges was calculated based on 100% occupancy at a dwelling coinciding with
maximum airborne and deposited activity due to these discharges from Hinkley Point C. The
family members consume seafood at the 97.5th percentile rates as calculated on all
observations in the most recent CEFAS (Ref. 55) survey of Hinkley Point habits, and also
consumes terrestrial foodstuffs at average (Ref. 55) rates. For child and infant consumption
parameters, the same methods were used to determine consumption rates. However, in cases
where there are no instances of a food group being consumed, child and infant data was
derived from adult data using the method described in the CEFAS (2007) report. Where
appropriate ratios were not present in the CEFAS report, ratios of adult to child and adult to
infant ingestion rates were calculated from generalised habit data (Ref. 56).
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 129
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.1.34 The predicted doses to this ‘Fishing Family with marine and gaseous exposure’ were calculated
to be 3.0, 2.3 and 3.6 μSv y-1 for the adult, child and infant members respectively.
A.C.1.35 Exposure by members of the public due to direct radiation was estimated based on predicted
dose rates at the site perimeter (and exposure due to dog walking or similar recreational
activities in this area), and the dose rate at the nearest habitation (based on home occupancy).
A.C.1.36 For a ‘dog walker’ spending 20 minutes per day at the site perimeter at the area likely to have
the highest external dose rate, a dose of 1.5 μSv y-1 was estimated.
A.C.1.37 A local resident spending the whole year in close proximity to the Hinkley Point C site at the
nearest dwelling to the proposed spent fuel/ILW waste stores will receive the highest at-home
dose of all local residents. The nearest dwelling to the proposed Spent Fuel/ILW store on the
HPC site is at a distance of ~1.3 km. The dose to an adult spending 4,380 hours per year (50%)
indoors and 4,380 hours per year outdoors was calculated as 0.0014 μSv y-1. The dose to a
child spending 7,008 hours per year (80%) indoors and 1,752 hours per year outdoors was
calculated as 0.0007 μSv y-1. The dose to an infant spending 7,884 hours per year (90%)
indoors and 876 hours per year outdoors was calculated as 0.0005 μSv y-1. The higher doses
due to outdoor exposure reflect the ‘shielding factor’ afforded by building structures, which will
vary with different types of construction.
A.C.1.38 The highest overall dose predicted by Amec (Ref. 32) is thus 4.5 μSv per year to the infant
member of the ‘farming family’.
b) Extrapolation
A.C.1.39 Sizewell B is a single PWR with an output of 1188 MWe, which began generation in 1995. It is
situated on the east coast of Suffolk. Sizewell B is authorised to discharge both gaseous and
liquid low level radioactive effluents to the environment, via designated outlets. Monitoring of
both discharges and environmental concentrations of radioactivity is undertaken by the site
operator and, independently, by the regulatory agency (the Environment Agency). Information
from the independent, regulatory, monitoring programme is published annually. The most
recent information relating to discharges, activity concentrations in the environment, local
habits and assessed doses to the critical group (or ‘representative person’) is summarised
below (Ref. 57) IV.
IV
Reports on discharges and monitoring around nuclear licensed sites throughout the UK have been published by
the relevant regulatory authorities since the early 1960s. Earlier series presented information for the coastal and
terrestrial environments in separate reports. Since 1995, data have been collated in a single series, ‘Radioactivity in
Food and the Environment’ (RIFE). The reports are freely available in hard copy or as pdf files on CD from each of the
current sponsoring agencies: the Environment Agency, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of the
Environment for Northern Ireland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. A full series of RIFE reports can
be
downloaded
from:
http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/scientific-series/radioactivity-in-food-and-theenvironment(rife).aspx
130 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.6: Radionuclide Discharges and Discharge Limits for Sizewell B, 2008
Discharge Limit (TBq, Expressed as
Annual Equivalent)
Actual Discharge (TBq) 2008
Noble gases
30
2.87
Particulate-beta
10-4
7x10-6
Tritium
3
0.598
Carbon-14
0.5
0.333
Iodine-131
5x10-4
3.6x10-5
Tritium
80
51.6
Caesium-137
0.02
0.005
Other radionuclides
0.13
0.015
Gaseous discharges
Liquid discharges
A.C.1.40 The discharge limits set for Sizewell B are similar to the maximum predicted releases from
Hinkley Point C, making some allowance for the overall capacity of each site (Sizewell B is
around one-third to one-half the capacity of the two combined EPR reactors proposed for
Hinkley Point C). For example, for Hinkley Point C a proposed discharge limit of 150 TBq
A.C.1.41 compares with a discharge limit of 80 TBq for Sizewell B (but noting that the actual discharge
was 51.6 TBq in 2008)V.
A.C.1.42 3.46 With respect to discharges to atmosphere, Sizewell B is authorised to discharge annually
3 TBq tritium, which compares with a proposed discharge limit for Hinkley Point C of 6 TBq (but
noting again that the actual release of H-3 was around 0.6 TBq from Sizewell B in 2008 and the
corresponding predicted release from Hinkley Point C will be lower than the proposed limit) VI.
The maximum predicted release of C-14 from Hinkley Point C is 1.4 TBq per year (cf 0.5 TBq
above), 400 MBq iodine-131 (cf 500 MBq above) and 44 TBq for the noble gases (cf 30 TBq,
above).
V
The anticipated discharge from Hinkley Point C will be lower than the proposed discharge limit. This comparison is
intended only to illustrate overall magnitudes of discharge and does not represent most probable discharges from
the proposed reactors at Hinkley Point C.
VI
Simple comparisons between Sizewell B and the proposed reactors at Hinkley point C can be misleading. An
example is provided in the comparison of H-3 discharges. Discharge to atmosphere has a higher dose impact per
unit release than discharge to the coastal environment. The discharges from Hinkley point C represent the best
practicable environmental option to minimise impacts.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 131
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.1.43 Whilst the actual discharges from Sizewell B are typically rather lower than the discharge limits,
this provides some reassurance that extrapolations based on precedent around Sizewell are
one reasonable line of evidence.
A.C.1.44 Based on periodic local surveys, the Environment Agency et al (Ref. 57) report that ‘critical
group’ seafood consumers near to Sizewell consume 23 kg fish per year, 11 kg crab and lobster
per year and 5.1 kg Pacific oysters and mussels per year. They also spend 720 h per y over
mud. Corresponding habits for the terrestrial ‘critical group’ are derived from national surveys
reported by Byrom et al. (1995).
A.C.1.45 The annual dose determined to the critical group (or ‘representative person’), based on the
above information, is reported by the Environment Agency et al. (2009) to be less than 5 μSv
per year for the seafood consumers and likewise less than 5 μSv per year for the terrestrial
foodstuff consumers. An assessed total annual dose for a hypothetical person, integrating
across all pathways and including direct radiation from proximity to the site, is reported to be
31 μSv per year.
A.C.1.46 It is noted that the Sizewell site also housed a twin Magnox reactor station (Sizewell A).
Although this station ceased generating electricity in 1995, it is currently undergoing
decommissioning and continues to contribute to discharges of radioactive materials to the
environment. The measured activity concentrations and assessed doses to the critical group
are necessarily inclusive of the combined past and present discharges from both the Sizewell A
and B stations. The dose contribution from direct radiation was higher from the Magnox reactor
than from the PWR.
A.C.1.47 3.51 The evidence from a current operating PWR site indicates that a dose to the local
community may be in the regions of less than 5 μSv per year associated with discharge
pathways. This is comparable to the predicted dose for Hinkley Point C presented by Amec (Ref.
32). The higher total dose determined at Sizewell (31 μSv per year) by the Environment Agency
et al. (Ref. 57) includes a substantial contribution from direct radiation, which was estimated by
Amec (Ref. 32) to represent a minor contributory pathway for Hinkley Point C.
c) Observation
A.C.1.48 As previously discussed, the region around Hinkley Point already hosts a number of nuclear
power stations and other nuclear licensed facilities. These collectively contribute to radioactive
discharges to atmosphere and to the Severn estuary.
A.C.1.49 Annual discharges during 2008 are summarised below (expressed as rounded values) for
gaseous and liquid effluents (Ref. 57).
132 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.7: Gaseous Discharges to the Hinkley Point Region, 2008
Discharge (TBq)
GE Healthcare
Cardiff
Limit
Actual
756**
290**
3.7
1.1
4
0.93
2.38
1.26
S-35
0.35
0.12
0.45
0.055
Ar-41
100
8.85
500
19.3
Co-60
1.10-4
8.0.10-6
I-131
0.0015
7.0.10-6
2.4.10-7
1.5.10-4
5.0.10-7
H-3
0.02
4.7.10-3
1.5
0.11
12
C-14
0.005
2.8.10-4
0.6
7.3.10-4
Key
Limit
1.6
Limit
9
2.10-5
Actual
Oldbury
1.5
Beta
Actual
Hinkley Point B
3.0.10-5
Limit
Actual
Hinkley Point A
1.10-4
Limit
Actual
Radionuclide
Berkeley
* Small quantities of other radionuclides are also discharged.
** The authorisation distinguishes between soluble and insoluble forms of tritium. These are combined
here for simplicity.
Table A.C.7: Liquid Discharges to the Hinkley Point Region, 2008
Discharge (TBq)
77.9
1
0.18
130**
C-14
S-35
2
0.15
Co-60
0.01
0.0042
Cs137
2
3.8.10-4
1
0.11
0.1
0.0042
0.7
0.31
Other
2
0.0012
0.7
0.37
0.08
0.0035
0.7
0.13
Actual
Actual
Limit
650
GE Healthcare
Cardiff
Limit
0.29
Oldbury
Actual
1.8
Hinkley Point B
Limit
4.9.10-5
Actual
1
Hinkley Point A
Limit
Limit
H-3
Actual
Radionuclide
Berkeley
14.4
0.91†
0.065
1.2.10-
nil
4
Key
* Small quantities of other radionuclides are also discharged.
** The authorisation distinguishes between soluble and insoluble forms of tritium. These are combined
here for simplicity.
†
>1TBq in 1998.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 133
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
<0.90
<0.45
<1.0
<0.34
<0.33
Stolford
Stolford
Stolford
Pipeline
Watchet
Harbour
Pipeline
Stolford
Steart Flats
River Parrett
Weston-SuperMare
Burnham-OnSea
Kilve
Blue Anchor
Pipeline
Shrimps
Limpets
Porphyra
Seaweed
Mud
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Seawater
30
96
72
29
46
41
<0.10
<0.04
<0.06
<0.06
<0.04
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
134 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
86
54
29
<0.40
<0.35
<0.82
<0.89
<0.46
<0.42
<0.09
<0.03
<0.05
<0.06
<0.04
Co-60
Stolford
120
Mn-54
Bass
130
C-14
Stolford
H-3
Cod
OBT
<0.04
<4.7
<1.0
<4.0
<1.0
3.0
<2.5
<1.0
<1.0
<1.5
Sr-90
10
Tc99
<0.33
<0.70
<0.11
<0.04
<0.06
<0.06
<0.04
Cs-134
<0.33
1.7
15
2.6
2.2
33
21
18
9.9
7.0
<0.77
1.1
0.30
0.31
1.4
0.69
Cs-134
7.5.10-5
Cs-137
Mean Radioactivity Concentration (Bq per kg fw, except sediment for which Bq per kg dw)
Location
Material
Table A.C.8: Radionuclide Concentrations in the Coastal and Marine Environment near Hinkley Point, 2008
6.8.10-4
Pu-238
<0.42
<0.56
<1.2
<0.50
<0.57
<4.0
<1.3
<0.75
<0.66
<0.74
<1.0
<0.30
<0.10
6.2.10-4
<0.06
<0.10
Pu239+240
Am-241
A.C.1.50 Concentrations of radioactivity in the environment around Hinkley Point have been reported by the Environment Agency et al. (2009), as follows.
Table A.C.8: Radionuclide Concentrations in the Terrestrial Marine Environment near Hinkley
Point, 2008
Material
Location
Mean Radioactivity Concentration (Bq per kg fw, except milk and
water for which Bq per l)
H-3
C-14
S-35
Co-60
Cs-134
Cs-137
Milk
<4.6
18
<0.30
<0.19
<0.19
<0.20
Milk
<4.8
20
<0.38
<0.20
<0.20
Apples
<5.0
21
<0.20
<0.30
<0.20
<0.20
Blackberries
<4.0
18
0.50
<0.30
<0.20
<0.20
Carrots
<5.0
12
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
Honey
<7.0
69
<0.10
<0.20
<0.20
0.70
Lettuce
<5.0
<3.0
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
Potatoes
<5.0
18
0.50
<0.40
<0.30
<0.30
Runner beans
<5.0
6.0
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
Wheat
<7.0
75
1.1
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
Freshwater
Durleigh
Reservoir
<5.5
<0.80
<0.33
<0.26
<0.26
Freshwater
Ashford Reservoir
<4.0
<0.70
<0.39
<0.33
<0.33
Key
* Only relevant to Magnox and AGR stations.
Table A.C.9: Radiation Dose Rates near Hinkley Point, 2008
Location
Description
Dose Rate (μGy per hour)
Weston-Super-Mare
Mud and Sand
0.065
Weston-Super-Mare
Sand
0.066
Burnham
Mud and Sand
0.077
Burnham
Sand
0.061
River Parrett
Mud and Rock
0.078
River Parrett
Mud and saltmarsh
0.084
Steart Flats
Mud
0.078
Stolford
Mud and Rock
0.092
Hinkley Point
Mud and Rock
0.096
Hinkley Point
Sand
0.093
Kilve
Rock and Mud
0.089
Kilve
Rock
0.083
Watchet Harbour
Mud
0.082
Watchet Harbour
Mud and Sand
0.095
Watchet Harbour
Mud and Rock
0.10
Blue Anchor Bay
Mud and Sand
0.077
Blue Anchor Bay
Sand
0.059
Blue Anchor Bay
Pebbles and Sand
0.066
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 135
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.1.51 Environmental concentrations are influenced by what has been discharged, rather than what
will be discharged, therefore comparison between current discharges (and limits on discharges)
and actual discharges is not clear cut. In addition, the multiple sources of discharge to the
Severn Estuary mean that current concentrations are not, in all instances, an indication of what
may be anticipated as a result of discharges from Hinkley Point C. The purpose of presenting
the information is to provide an overall comparison of environmental concentrations, rather
than to identify specific trends which may be anticipated.
A.C.1.52 Based on periodic local surveys, the Environment Agency et al. (Ref. 57) report that ‘critical
group’ seafood consumers near to Hinkley Point consume 40 kg fish per y, 12 kg shrimps per y
and 1.9 kg whelks per y. They also spend 1300 h per y over mud. Corresponding habits for the
terrestrial ‘critical group’ are derived from national surveys reported by Byrom et al. (Ref. 58).
A.C.1.53 The annual dose determined to the critical group (or ‘representative person’), based on the
above information, is reported by the Environment Agency et al. (Ref. 57) to be 37 μSv per year
for the seafood consumers and 6 μSv per year for the terrestrial foodstuff consumers. An
assessed total annual dose for a hypothetical person, integrating across all pathways and
including direct radiation from proximity to the site, is reported to be 45 μSv per year. A portion
of this dose is attributable to direct radiation.
A.C.1.54 The measured activity concentrations and assessed doses to the critical group are necessarily
inclusive of contributions from the combined past and present discharges from all nuclear
licensed facilities discharging to the region.
A.C.1.55 The evidence from current measurements in the region indicates that a dose to the local
community, inclusive of all sources, may be in the regions of some 10s of μSv per year for all
pathways together. This observation is deliberately expressed in round terms and is
necessarily subject to some uncertainty as the dose estimated for the local critical group has
fluctuated over recent years, possibly due to ‘variations in natural radiation’ (Ref. 57).
A.C.1.56 The estimate presented above can be compared to that derived by Amec (Ref. 32) who state
that “summing the retrospective critical group dose with the direct radiation dose and the
future exposures critical group dose (from 50 years of combined discharges from the Hinkley
Point Site) results in the total dose for the site of 61 μSv”. In this case, Amec (Ref. 32) include
future discharges from both Hinkley point A and Hinkley Point B stations over the operational
life of Hinkley Point C, and it is likely that this represents a very conservative estimate.
136 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.2 Radiological Assessment Evidence Base
a) Background Radiation
A.C2.1
Radiation describes any process in which energy travels through a medium, other than via
conduction, or through space. There are two broad classes of radiation: ionizing radiation
which comes from radioactive materials (i.e. materials that emit radiation), x-ray machines and
non-ionizing radiation (usually electromagnetic radiation) which comes from other sources. For
a brief introduction to the concept of radioactivity and the types of radioactive properties which
may be encountered, the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) have produced a booklet entitled
‘What is Radiation’ (Ref. 59) VII.
A.C2.2
The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from outer space
(‘cosmic rays’). This radiation primarily consists of positively charged ions from protons to iron
and larger nuclei derived from sources outside our solar system. This radiation interacts with
atoms in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha
particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons.
A.C2.3
Cosmic rays also cause elemental transmutation in the atmosphere, in which secondary
radiation generated by the cosmic rays combines with atomic nuclei in the atmosphere to
generate different radioactive nuclides. Many so-called cosmogenic nuclides can be produced,
but probably the most notable is carbon-14, which is produced by interactions with nitrogen
atoms.
A.C2.4
Radioactive material is also found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil, rocks,
water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial radiation are
common elements with low-abundance radioactive isotopes, like potassium and carbon, or the
long-lived elements uranium and thorium and their decay products. Most of these sources have
been decreasing, due to radioactive decay since the formation of the Earth, because there is no
significant amount currently transported to the Earth. Thus, the present activity on earth from
uranium-238 is only half as much as it originally was because of its 4.5 billion year half-life, and
potassium-40 (half life 1.25 billion years) is only at about 8% of original activity.
A.C2.5
In addition, many shorter half-life and thus more intensely radioactive isotopes have not
decayed out of the terrestrial environment, because they are in the decay chains of long-lived,
naturally occurring uranium and thorium. An example of this is radon-222, a decay product of
radium-226.
A.C2.6
The table below shows how much radiation we typically receive from both natural and manmade sources affecting the UK population. The figures in this table also taken from information
published by the HPA. (Ref. 60) (Ref. 61)
VII
http://www.hpa.org.uk/
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 137
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.10: Average Annual Doses to UK Population from all Sources of Radiation
Source
Dose (mSv)
All natural sources (average)
2.2
Made up on average from:
natural gamma radiation
0.35
natural cosmic radiation
0.33
naturally radioactive materials internal to our
bodies
0.25
naturally occurring radioactive radon gas (a)
1.3
Medical exposure to radiation (X-rays etc.)
0.41
Occupational exposure
0.006
Fallout from earlier nuclear weapons testing
0.006
Products containing radioactivity
0.0001
Discharges from nuclear industry
0.0009
Total (b)
2.7
Key
(a) The dose attributed to naturally occurring radon gas varies with location, house
construction materials, ventilation rates and other factors. A typical range of 1-6 mSv per
year is presented by the HPA (see reference above).
(b) Based on variability in the typical dose from naturally occurring radon (see above) a
typical total dose to the UK population may vary from 2.3 to 7.3 mSv per year.
A.C2.7
The principles of radiological protection (see below) which are applied to licensed activities are
based on the limitation of incremental exposures of radiation; that is, the limit is applied over
and above any radiation dose which may arise naturally.
b) Radiological Protection Criteria
A.C2.8
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was founded in 1928 as an
independent advisory body (Ref. 62) (Ref. 63). The recommendations of the ICRP continue to
guide the system for ensuring radiological protection both nationally in the UK and
internationally. The approach established by the ICRP in 1990 (Ref. 64), and which continues to
apply (Ref. 65) is based on three principles.


Justification is the first of these principles and is, in effect, the first assessment hurdle a
practice involving the use of radioactive materials must overcome. Justification aims to
ensure that no practice is adopted which involves exposure to ionising radiation unless it
produces a nett benefit to the exposed individuals or to society as a whole.
Optimisation is the second principle underpinning radiological protection. Optimisation
requires that radiation doses from any practice that has been justified are reduced to a level
‘as low as is reasonably achievable’ (ALARA). Optimisation involves striking a balance
between the efforts required to reduce doses, against the dose reduction these efforts can
deliver. In the UK optimisation is a requirement laid on nuclear licensed site operators by
the relevant regulatory body. Different regimes in the field of radiological protection use
different terminology (for instance, the application of Best Available Techniques – BAT – in
138 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL

A.C2.9
England and Wales, or Best Practicable Means – BPM – in Scotland and Northern Ireland)
and have their own guidance on this topic, but they all involve making a judgement between
options by comparing benefits in terms of safety, environmental protection etc, and costs in
terms of time, effort or money. All exposures should be constrained to minimise
inequalities arising from risks to any individual or part of society.
Limitation is the third principle. Limitation can be regarded as a ‘back stop’. The
application of rigorous dose limits ensures that no individual shall be exposed to ionising
radiation leading to an unacceptable risk under normal circumstances.
Through a Direction, issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions in May 2000 under a provision of the Environment Act (1995), the Environment Agency
is tasked with specific requirements in relation to the implementation of the Euratom Basic
Safety Standards Directive [96/29/EURATOM] within England and Wales. An equivalent
Direction was issued by the Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
A.C2.10 The dose limit for members of the public in the UK is 1 mSv per year. With the exception of
medical exposures VIII, no activity is permitted to give rise to discharges which would cause
exceedence of this limit. The dose limit applies to the sum of current and past licensed
activities.
A.C2.11 Where there are multiple sites in close proximity, it is important to ensure that the overall dose
to members of the public remains below the dose limit of 1 mSv per year. Accordingly, the
Direction referenced above includes the requirement on the agencies to:
“have regard to the following maximum doses to individuals which may result from a
defined source, for use at the planning stage in radiation protection

0.3 millisieverts per year from any source from which radioactive discharges are first
made on or after 13th May 2000; or

0.5 millisieverts per year from the discharges from any single site.”
A.C2.12 For public exposure, the single source dose constraint of 0.3mSv per year for new facilities is an
upper bound on the annual doses that members of the public should receive from the planned
operation of any controlled source. The dose constraint places a restriction on the annual dose
to an individual from a particular source in order to ensure that when aggregated with doses
from all sources, excluding natural background and medical procedures, the dose limit is not
exceeded. The application of modern standards may lead to the regulators indicating more
challenging (i.e. numerically smaller, or more constraining) dose constraints
A.C2.13 There is no lower limit on doses below which the general requirement for optimisation does not
apply. Nonetheless, DECC and the Welsh Assembly Government (Ref. 27) have issued Statutory
Guidance to the Environment Agency for England and Wales which includes the provision that,
“where the prospective dose to the most exposed group of members of the public is below 10
μSv/y from overall discharges …the Environment Agency should not seek to reduce further the
discharge limits in place, provided that the holder of the authorisation applies and continues to
apply BAT”. IX
VIII
Separate guidance and constraints apply to medical exposures (both diagnostic and therapeutic) and to the
exposure of carers. The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. Statutory Instrument No. 1059
IX
In England and Wales, this supersedes the value of 20 μSv per year set out in Cmnd 2919. This modification is not
reflected in the corresponding Statutory Guidance from the Scottish Government to the SEPA.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 139
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
c) Routes of Radiological Exposure
A.C2.14 The potential routes by which people could be exposed to radiation, and hence receive a
radiation dose are:

external radiation from certain types of radioactive materials, which could affect people in
close proximity; and

internal radiation from radioactive materials that, once released, are in a form that means
they could be inhaled or could enter the food chain and therefore be eaten or drunk.
A.C2.15 The fundamental dosimetric quantity in radiological protection is the absorbed dose, with units
of joules per kilogram, referred to as the gray (Gy). One gray is the absorption of one joule of
energy, in the form of ionizing radiation, by one kilogram of matter.
1 Gy = 1 J per kg [= 1 m2 s-2]
A.C2.16 Absorbed dose is a physical quantity which does not reflect fully the possible biological effects
of ionising radiation.
A.C2.17 The unit for expressing the degree of exposure of people to radiation that reflects the level of
relevant damage to cellular DNA was introduced in the radiological impact assessment as the
sievert (Sv). It was noted that the Sv is a relatively complex unit which reflects the relevant
biological impact or ‘equivalent dose’ to tissue from the adsorbed (or physical) dose. It was
further noted that it is frequent to use the smaller units of millisievert (1 mSv = 10–3 Sv) and
microsievert (1 μSv = 10–6 Sv), as this reflects the order of magnitude range of doses most
frequently encountered within environmental radiological protection studies.
A.C2.18 The equivalent dose to a tissue (Sv) is determined by multiplying the absorbed dose (Gy) by a
dimensionless "quality factor" or “relative biological effectiveness” factor X (Q), dependent
upon radiation type, and by another dimensionless factor N, dependent on all other pertinent
factors. Together, Q and N constitute the radiation weighting factor, WR.
1 Sv [= 1 J/kg = 1 m2/s2 = 1 m2•s–2] = 1 Gy x wR
A.C2.19 Although the sievert has the same dimensions as the gray, it measures a different quantity. For
a given amount of adsorbed radiation, the biological effect can vary considerably as a result of
the radiation weighting factor WR. This variation in effect is attributed to the Linear Energy
Transfer (LET) of the type of radiation (related to the density of the ionisations caused), creating
a different radiation weighting factor for each type of radiation under consideration.
A.C2.20 As shown below, the ICRP (Ref. 65) (Ref. 66) have recommended different radiation weighting
factors for different types of radiation.
Table A.C.11: Radiation Weighting Factors for Different types of Radiation
Radiation Type
Radiation Weighting Factor WR
Photons
1
Electrons and muons
1
Protons and charged pions
2
Alpha particles, fission fragments, heavy ions
20
Neutrons
A continuous function of neutron energy
X
The relative biological effectiveness may be referred to as RBE. For simplicity, we are referring here to the quality
factor Q, which is well established within the terminology employed to assess doses.
140 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C2.21 Where organs are irradiated, a whole body effective dose can be determined using organ
specific weighting factors (Wt). As described in Section 5, the effective dose is the tissueweighted sum of equivalent doses, and is used to compare the absorbed doses of radiation
received from different radiations by different tissues. The following values are currently
recommended by ICRP (2007, and see the review of Wrixon 2008).
Table A.C.12: ICRP Effective Dose Recommendations
Tissue
Tissue Weighted Factor
(Wt)
Sum of Tissue Weighted Factors
(ΣWt)
Bone-marrow (red), colon, lung,
stomach, breast, remainder tissues
(a)
0.12
0.72
Gonads
0.08
0.08
Bladder, oesophagus, liver, thyroid
0.04
0.16
Bone surface, brain, salivary
0.01
0.04
Total
Key
1
(a) Remainder tissues: Adrenals, extrathoracic (ET) region, gall bladder, heart, kidneys,
lymphatic nodes, muscle, oral mucosa, pancreas, prostate (♂), small intestine, spleen, thymus,
uterus/cervix (♀).
A.C2.22 The intention underlying the expression of radiation exposure as sieverts (or its derivative
fractions) is to simplify the comparison of radiation doses from the different types of radiation.
Thus, one mSv of radiation in a particular tissue has the same biological effect on people
irrespective of whether the originating radiation is alpha, beta or gamma.
A.C2.23 The ICRP publish, and regularly update, dose coefficients which represent the dose (Sv) to an
individual per unit intake (Bq) by either ingestion or inhalation. The dose coefficients are
expressed inclusive of radiation weighting factors and are expressed separately for different
age groups.
A.C2.24 The most recent update of the dose coefficients are available as a compilation published in CD
format. Details are available from the ICRP website XI.
A.C2.25 Dose coefficients referred to in this report are taken from the latest recommendations of the
ICRP.
d) Determining Radiological Dose
A.C2.26 The human health impact from radiation exposure has been studied over a long period. Such
work is reviewed regularly by international and national scientific bodies. These bodies
maintain their scientific independence from Governments and from commercial interests.
A.C2.27 Over the many years that the subject has been studied, it has become established that the
determination of radiation dose (see above) may then be used to calculate the potential health
XI
Available at: http://www.icrp.org/prod_c.asp. ICRP Publications (including compilation CDs) are available at a
cost.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 141
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
effects to an individual. The derivation of dose-risk factors is, again, recommended by bodies
such as the ICRP and endorsed by national authorities.
A.C2.28 Among the most important sources of information are the various studies of people who have
been exposed to radiation. This includes studies of those who have been exposed through
their jobs (such as hospital radiographers or nuclear industry workers) or through such major
events as the atomic weapons explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. International
groups of scientists collaborate on this work and several bodies have developed a worldwide
reputation as authoritative sources of advice. These include the ICRP (Ref. 64) (Ref. 65) (Ref.
67) (Ref. 68) (Ref. 69), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR ) (Ref. 70), the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations
(BEIR) of the US National Research Council and, in the UK, the Health Protection Agency (which
now incorporates what was previously known as the National Radiological Protection Board).
A.C2.29 It is acknowledged in all scientific disciplines that there will always remain room for refining
theories and for reducing the remaining levels of uncertainty. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that
on the basis of reviews of information to date, the health risks associated with exposure to
radiation are reasonably well understood and are certainly commensurate with determining
health impacts relevant to the current radiological protection criteria.
A.C2.30 It was noted in the radiological Health Impact Appraisal that exposure to ionising radiation
gives rise to two types of health effects: deterministic effects and stochastic effects.
A.C2.31 Deterministic effects occur only above certain threshold doses. Stochastic effects are thought
to be effects for which there is no dose threshold.
A.C2.32 The approach to radiological protection is designed to eliminate all deterministic effects.
A.C2.33 The relationship between the probability of the occurrence of a stochastic health effect (the
response) and the level of exposure to radiation (the dose) at the low levels of radiation
exposure routinely experienced at work or in the environment is assumed, for the purposes of
radiological protection, to be linear no-threshold (LNT) – put simply, the response is assumed
to be directly proportional to the dose with no threshold dose below which the effect does not
occur. This approach is taken because it is believed to be prudent and so is likely to err in the
direction of caution; it is also an approach that has the considerable merit of practicality for
those managing radiation protection.
A.C2.34 Two types of stochastic health effect are of concern to radiological protection: cancer in the
exposed individual and hereditary disease in the individual’s descendents.
A.C2.35 Studies have shown that the risk of the exposed individual developing cancer is relatively much
larger than the risk of heritable effects in their descendants. The ICRP (Ref. 65) has assessed
the risk coefficients (the additional risk over a person’s lifetime per unit radiation dose
received) for low dose and/or low dose-rate exposure to be as follows.
142 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
Table A.C.13: Cancer and Heritable Risk Factors
Exposed
Population (a)
Risk of Cancer
Induction (per Sv) (b)
Heritable Effects
(per Sv) (b)
Total Health Detriment
(per Sv)
All Ages
5.5%
0.2%
5.7%
Adults
4.1%
0.1%
4.2%
Key
(a) The differences between the risk factors for the whole population and those for the
adult population alone are due to the higher sensitivity of children to radiation-induced
cancer and the fact that younger people have a greater potential period for
reproduction and passing on heritable effects.
(b) These risk coefficients are weighted to take account of the severity of the health
outcome, providing a measure of the health detriment arising from exposure to
radiation.
A.C2.36 These factors are not exact. They are nominal risk coefficients derived for the purposes of
making decisions on radiological protection not for predicting precise numbers of health effects
in a specific population. As described in Section 5, the effective dose is the tissue-weighted
sum of equivalent doses, and is used to compare the absorbed doses of radiation received from
different radiations by different tissues.
A.C2.37 The Health protection Agency have published their commentary on the recommendations of the
ICRP (Ref. 71).
A.C2.38 Significant effort has been expended in recent years to quantify the uncertainty associated with
these risk estimates. These uncertainty analyses take account of a range of possible
contributions including, for example, variations to the assumption of the LNT relationship at low
doses/dose-rates (see above). Overall, these indicate that the uncertainty in the coefficients
tabulated is unlikely to be more than a factor of two in either direction (i.e. the “true” risk
coefficients are likely to lie within a range from half to twice the risk coefficients adopted by the
ICRP). This does not mean to say that the uncertainty cannot be smaller or larger for a particular
set of exposure circumstances, but that the overall risk coefficients upon which the framework
of radiological protection is based will be accurate within a factor of around two.
e) Critical Groups/Representative Person
A.C2.39 In order to calculate potential doses to members of the public the concept of identifying a
‘critical group’ or ‘representative person’ is applied. The characteristics used to define the
relevant member(s) of the public are based on observation but are not intended to represent an
actual individual. Rather, it is a convenient way of describing a set of characteristics which
taken together provide a reasonable upper estimate on the actual doses likely to be incurred.
There are two important parameters within this statement. The first is that the set of
characteristics must be reasonable. That is, the sum of all occupancy data for a person cannot
exceed real time availability (for instance, total daily occupancy of areas at work, at home, in
leisure pursuits etc. cannot exceed 24 hours in a day). Likewise, food intakes must be
sustainable based on calorific considerations. Second, the characteristics provide an upper
estimate on exposure applicable for the facility and region. It is not intended to derive the
maximum conceivable dose which could be incurred (for instance by assuming a dwelling place
which is, in fact, inaccessible).
A.C2.40 Information used to define the habits of people living in the vicinity of a nuclear site, and who
could be affected by it, can be drawn from local surveys or from national datasets. In practice, a
combination of both approaches is often made.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 143
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C2.41 Local surveys may identify nearest points of habitation, frequency of use of areas such as
beaches or land near to the facility (whether for work related activities such as fishing or
farming, or for leisure pursuits such as jogging or dog walking). They may also identify
consumption patterns, including the use of food sources characteristic for the region.
A.C2.42 National data may be used to augment local information. For instance, if young children do not
happen to be dwelling in the immediate vicinity at a particular time, it is evident that the
situation may change. Characteristics representative of such a group may then be drawn from
other sources.
A.C2.43 Assumptions relating to the sourcing of foods are also intended to represent reasonable upper
conditions. This means that local foods (that is, food produced within a km or so of the facility,
including garden produce) are assumed to be consumed wherever practicable. For instance,
potatoes, most vegetables, meat, fish and shellfish can be assumed to be derived from the
local area. Certain foods are very unlikely to be sourced solely from local produce, including
bread (since flour is almost always derived from a broader region than is intended to be covered
by the ‘local’ definition). Other foods, such as milk, may be derived locally, although it is
increasingly rare for non-bulk milk to be consumed.
A.C2.44 Consumption of ‘wild foods’ may also be included within the defined set of characteristics. This
may include hedgerow fruits, berries and mushrooms, as well as wildfowl and other game.
A.C2.45 The hypothetical group of people following these habits has, in the past, been termed the
“critical group”. This approach originates from the ICRP and is one that has been adopted over
several decades as part of the approach to radiation protection. However, in their most recent
guidance, ICRP has advised that the term “representative person” should be used in place of
“critical group” to avoid any potential misunderstanding arising from the terminology.
A.C2.46 In practice, the terms critical group and representative person are interchangeable.
Consequently, previous references to critical groups are not updated to reflect the current
terminology.
f)
Collective Dose
A.C2.47 The “collective dose” for a particular group of people from a particular source of radiation
means the sum of all the individual doses that each person receives as a result of exposure to
that source. The unit of collective dose is the “man-sievert”, which emphasises that it is a
summated unit.
A.C2.48 Collective dose can be a useful parameter where optimisation of radiological protection is being
undertaken, especially in situations where there are judgements to be made about alternative
approaches which could result in numbers of people being exposed to radiation at a range of
different levels.
A.C2.49 It is not intended that collective doses should be derived in order to express an overall risk
assessment to a population which is individually exposed to very low doses. The ICRP (Ref. 65)
guidance on use of the collective dose is reproduced below.
“The collective effective dose quantity is an instrument for optimisation, for comparing
radiological technologies and protection procedures, predominantly in the context of
occupational exposure. Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for
epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections. The
aggregation of very low individual doses over extended time periods is inappropriate, and
in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective
doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided.”
144 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C2.50 The prospective doses from construction of a new facility at Hinkley Point have been estimated
as being of the order of 5 μSv per year, possibly less, in the radiological Health Impact
Appraisal. This dose is less than 0.25% of the typical naturally occurring background dose
received in the UK and is taken to fall within the meaning of ‘very low’ dose as referred to by the
ICRP. For this reason, individual doses have not been aggregated within this assessment in
order to derive a collective dose. To do so would, in our opinion, conflict with internationally
recognised good practice.
g) Basis for Predictive Assessments
A.C2.51 It was noted in the radiological health impact that an effective stack height around 20-25 m was
assumed for the purposes of dispersion modelling. Amec (Ref. 32) report that reasonably
complex modelling was undertaken using the ADMS dispersion modelling code to determine an
optimum actual stack height of 70 m for each of the EPR units. For the next stage of the
modelling undertaken by Amec (2010), using PC CREAM 98 (see below) an effective stack
height approximately 1/3 of the actual stack height was used. This is a conventional
assumption (in the absence of better information) and is considered to be reasonably
conservative.
A.C2.52 The impact assessment presented by Amec (Ref. 32) was undertaken using the PC CREAM 98
software tool. PC CREAM is available from the HPA and comprises a suite of 6 programmes
(ASSESSOR, DORIS, PLUME, FARMLAND, RESUS, and GRANIS) for modelling the transfer of
radionuclides through the environment and calculating the dose to individuals and the
population from exposure to these nuclides. PC CREAM is a standard assessment tool used
extensively in the UK and elsewhere.
A.C2.53 HPA has recently made available a new version of the radiological impact assessment software
‘PC CREAM 08’. This updates the previous version. PC CREAM 08 differs from its predecessor in
a number of ways, including a new user interface, better treatment of daughter radionuclides,
the addition of some improved models (marine dispersion model for European waters and fruit
model) and widespread updates to the model input parameters. However, HPA have issued the
following advice on their websiteXII.
“Users should note that a bug has been found in the user interface of PC-CREAM 08 which
may affect the discharges used in the calculation of collective and individual doses arising
from atmospheric discharges. The error may occur when selecting discharges in the
ASSESSOR atmospheric modules because the system picks up discharges from the
selected PLUME run and these are sometimes allocated to the wrong radionuclides. The
simplest way around this is to only enter unit discharges in PLUME. An upgrade to solve
this problem will be available soon.”
A.C2.54 The continued use of PC CREAM 98 (as referenced in this report) is not unreasonable, although
it is clear that future assessments are likely to be undertaken using PC CREAM 08, subject to the
cautionary note above.
A.C2.55 A description of the models used in PC-CREAM 08 is available on the HPA website XIII. The model
is available on a commercial basis from the HPA.
A.C2.56 Both default and user defined parameters can be used within PC CREAM to estimate doses to
the representative person.
XII
XIII
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733792183
http://www.hpa.org.uk/HPA/Publications/Radiation/HPARPDSeriesReports
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 145
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C.3 Health Concerns Linking Cancer Incidence and Exposure to Low Level
Radiation
A.C3.1
A number of concerns have been raised about the health of communities around Hinkley Point,
particularly in the Burnham area. Specifically, a number of reports have been produced by the
group Green AuditXIV, indicating elevated risks of breast cancer (Ref. 72), prostate cancer (Ref.
73), childhood leukaemia (Ref. 74) and other cancers. The causative factor has been
associated with discharges of low level radioactive effluents to the environment from the
nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point (Ref. 74). The methodology of these studies has been
criticised by the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment
(Ref. 75) (Ref. 76) (Ref. 77) and by CERRIE (Ref. 78). Nonetheless, similar concerns have been
raised from time with respect to other nuclear installations in the UK, and elsewhere. To date,
the balance of scientific evidence leans heavily towards the conclusion that levels of
radioactivity encountered in the environment resulting from the operation of licensed nuclear
facilities cannot be identified as the cause of observable increased risks of cancer incidence or
mortality.
A.C3.2
A summary of some of the general concerns and issues raised over the past 25 years or so, and
the scientific responses to these concerns, is presented below. The following section also
summarises evidence from the scientific community concerning cancer incidence within the
Burnham population and other areas in the vicinity of Hinkley Point.
a) Incidence Rates of Leukaemia – A Brief Overview of UK and International Studies
A.C3.3
In November 1983 the TV documentary “Windscale – the Nuclear Laundry” identified an excess
in cases of childhood leukaemia in the West Cumbrian coastal village of Seascale, adjacent to
the Sellafield nuclear complex XV. This naturally caused concern to the local population, and the
implication from the programme makers was clear: radioactive discharges from Sellafield had
been responsible.
A.C3.4
The Government immediately established an independent expert inquiry, chaired by Sir Douglas
Black, to examine the claim. The report of the inquiry was published in July 1984 (Ref. 79). In
essence, that report confirmed that a cluster of childhood leukaemia had occurred in Seascale,
but that the amounts of radioactive material discharged from Sellafield were more than one
hundred times too small to be responsible.
A.C3.5
Further reports of childhood leukaemia near nuclear installations followed, including an excess
of cases around the Dounreay facility in Caithness, Scotland (the site of the only other largescale fuel reprocessing plant in Britain). Taken together with revisions that had to be made to
the Sellafield discharge record, this again raised health concerns. There were suggestions that
radiation exposures had been much greater than previously assessed and that the risk of
childhood leukaemia from radiation had been seriously underestimated.
XIV
“Green Audit was founded in 1992 as an environmental consultancy and review organisation with the aim of
monitoring the performance of companies and organizations whose activities might threaten the environment and
the health of citizens.” (http://www.greenaudit.org/about_green_audit.htm)
XV
The nuclear site at Sellafield was originally known as “Windscale and Calder Works”. In 1981 British Nuclear
Fuels limited reverted to the name for the wartime ordnance factory of Sellafield as part of a major reorganisation of
the site. An enclave within the site, which remained under the ownership of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority, retained the Windscale name. The 1983 TV documentary, and much of the media coverage since that
time, uses the term Windscale in the broadest sense to encompass the entire site and its associated activities.
146 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C3.6
Substantial research followed during the 1980s, overseen by the independent expert
Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). The first report by
COMARE was published in 1986 (Ref. 78). In that report, the Committee concluded that
additional information relating to discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield did not change the
essential conclusions of the Black report. All reports and statements from COMARE are
available for download free of charge from their website XVI.
A.C3.7
By 1990, an effective scientific consensus had been reached that direct exposure to radioactive
material discharged from nuclear installations could not be responsible for the reported
clusters of leukaemia. Nevertheless, there was continued and understandable concern that the
observed excess incidence of leukaemia around a number of nuclear installations was not
coincidental, and further research was undertaken.
A.C3.8
In 1990, Professor Martin Gardner and his colleagues proposed a possible explanation for the
Seascale cluster, based on an epidemiological study they had conducted in West Cumbria (Ref.
81). Among many potential factors they had studied, radiation exposure of fathers working at
Sellafield before the conception of their children was statistically associated with the incidence
of childhood leukaemia. At the same time, other scientific evidence did not support the
suggestion that the relationship was a causal one: whilst a statistical association existed in
West Cumbria between childhood leukaemia and radiation exposure of fathers, overall the
evidence did not suggest a cause-and-effect explanation.
A.C3.9
A causal interpretation of Gardner’s statistical association became more unlikely when the
same finding was not confirmed by other similar studies using independent data. For example,
an excess of childhood leukaemia was not observed in the offspring of survivors of the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was found not to account for the excess of cases
around Dounreay. Moreover, no increased rate of childhood leukaemia was found among
children of the much greater number of Sellafield fathers who lived outside the village of
Seascale.
A.C3.10 In 2001, an independent Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE)
was established following concerns related to radiation from radioactive material deposited
within the body. That committee operated through to 2004. The scientific evidence on which it
based its findings, together with minutes of its meetings, reports received in workshops and
papers tabled at its committee meetings, are all available for download free of charge from the
CERRIE website. The concluding report of that committee, which was published in 2004,
summarised studies to the end of 2003 as follows:
“Rates of leukaemia and other cancers in young people living near Sellafield and
Dounreay nuclear plants have been the subject of detailed investigations; see COMARE
(Ref. 83) (Ref. 84) (Ref. 85) (Ref. 86). Studies have also been conducted around various
other UK nuclear installations situated on the coast or near estuaries. For example, Bithell
et al (Ref. 87) examined rates of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) during
1966–1987 at ages 0–14 years in the proximity of 23 nuclear installations in England and
Wales, many of which were in coastal or estuarine locations. There was no evidence of an
increase in leukaemia and NHL with 25 km of the sites, or of a general increase in rates
with increasing proximity to the sites, as measured by a linear trend test. The only sites
for which this trend test gave statistically significant results were Sellafield (on the coast
of West Cumbria) and Burghfield (inland). A corresponding analysis for Scotland showed
no evidence of a general increase of leukaemia and NHL years during 1968–1993 at ages
0–14 near nuclear sites there (Ref. 88). There were statistically significant increases
XVI
http://www.comare.org.uk/. [Note that some of the early reports are not available in their full version, but
summaries of the main findings are available for download.]
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 147
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
within 25 km of Dounreay (observed/expected (O/E) = 1.99), Chapelcross (O/E = 1.08)
and Rosyth (O/E = 1.02), all of which are located on the coast or near estuaries, although
the linear test for trend in risk with proximity to the sites did not give statistically
significant results.”
A.C3.11 It seems fair to conclude that by the end of the 1990s the idea that childhood leukaemia
clusters might be the result of radiation exposure of fathers was effectively abandoned and by
the early 2000s no other credible radiation-related causative factor had been identified (Ref.
89).
A.C3.12 Recently, the findings of a case-control study of cancer in young children less than 5 years of
age living in the vicinity of nuclear power stations in Germany have been published (Ref. 90)
(Ref. 91). It was reported that, at the time of diagnosis, young children affected by cancer
tended to live closer to the stations than young children free of cancer – a result that was
essentially due to leukaemia among young children resident within 5 km of a nuclear power
plant. The authors themselves note (Ref. 91) that the findings do not appear to be consistent
with most international studies and that they cannot exclude the possibility that the
observation is due to chance XVII.
A.C3.13 A study of young children living within 5 km of a French nuclear installation (Ref. 92) (Ref. 93) XVIII
found no increase in the rate of leukaemia, although this study did not consider nuclear power
stations separately. Nevertheless, the German findings prompted a reanalysis of the data used
in the COMARE Tenth Report (Ref. 94) to examine childhood cancer around British nuclear
installations (95).
A.C3.14 The UK researchers followed the structure of the German study as closely as possible, although
the British study was a geographical correlation study rather than a case-control study. This
study found that the rate of leukaemia among young children living within 5 km of a British
nuclear power station was slightly raised, but that this increase was well within the fluctuation
in the rate that could be expected by chance alone.
A.C3.15 Given that the preceding information tends to negate a causative link between discharges of
low level radioactive effluents from nuclear facilities, it is reasonable to ask whether any
credible explanation has been proposed for the observed excesses of childhood leukaemia
near certain nuclear installations.
A.C3.16 An idea that has been discussed for many years, but which has been developed significantly
since the late-1980s, is that infections play a major role in the development of childhood
leukaemia. In the unusual conditions where previously isolated, largely rural, communities
undergo substantial population mixing it is possible that infective processes may result in
raised risks of developing leukaemia. Such conditions appear to have existed in both West
Cumbria and Caithness in the 1950s, when large nuclear facilities were constructed and
considerable recruitment to the workforce was undertaken from outside the local area.
Subsequent major expansion of the sites ensured that population mixing continued to occur
throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
A.C3.17 Professor Leo Kinlen suggested that childhood leukaemia is a rare response to a common (but
as yet unidentified) infection (Ref 96). Where unusual patterns of urban-rural population mixing
occur (such as identified above) there may be an associated enhancement of the rare response,
childhood leukaemia, brought about by appreciable numbers of susceptible children
encountering the relevant infection introduced by infected individuals. The evidence for a
statistical association between large-scale rural-urban population mixing and an increased
XVII
XVIII
http://www.ssk.de/de/werke/2008/volltext/ssk0815.pdf .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738848/
148 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
incidence of childhood leukaemia has continued to be investigated and a recent review of
studies conducted over the decade or more following publication of Kinlen’s hypothesis,
suggests that the association is well established (Ref.97).
A.C3.18 Professor Mel Greaves has suggested that it is an abnormal and delayed response to exposure
of the immune system of a young child to a broad range of common infective agents that
increases the risk of childhood leukaemia (Ref 98). Circumstances encouraging the prevention
of exposure to infections in the early years of life, such as the social isolation of the community
and/or the child, increase the risk of the disease.
A.C3.19 The village of Seascale and the area around Dounreay have undoubtedly been exceptionally
unusual communities over many years, with a high socio-economic class, mobile population
within a previously geographically isolated area. Likewise, areas immediately surrounding a
number of German nuclear power stations are likely to be atypical in that they are rural but
dependent economically on a large industrial installation.
A.C3.20 It is also becoming increasingly apparent that the background risk of childhood leukaemia
throughout Great Britain is far from uniform, and that clusters are a natural result of this
geographically variable risk (Ref. 99).
A.C3.21 It cannot yet be stated with certainty that infection is a major factor in the risk of childhood
leukaemia, but many studies have now pointed to the importance of infective patterns in
determining the risk of childhood leukaemia. As a broader picture of leukaemia incidence is
emerging it seems clear that clustering is associated with social factors and that it is unlikely
that that there is a causative link to discharges of low level radioactive effluents to the
environment.
b) Incidence of Cancer around Hinkley Point
A.C3.22 The South West Cancer Intelligence Service (SWCIS) was asked by Somerset Coast Primary Care
Trust (PCT) to look at the incidence of cancer in the wards of Burnham North, Burnham South,
Highbridge and Berrow (Ref. 100).
A.C3.23 The PCT was responding to local concerns following the publication of the results of a survey
conducted by Green Audit in Burnham North (Ref. 74) (Ref. 101), which claimed to have
identified an increased incidence of cancers of the female breast, kidney and cervix and of
leukaemia. A hypothesis had been proposed by Green Audit suggesting that these increased
incidence rates were attributable to exposure of the population of Burnham North to airborne
dust particles contaminated with radioactivity from the Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station.
A.C3.24 The SWCIS study found no significant correlation between the Standardised Registration Ratio
(SRR) by ward for all cancers combined or lung cancer or leukaemia alone and distance from
Hinkley Point or the mudflats on the River Parrett. Similarly the study has found no evidence
that the overall incidence of cancer in Burnham North or Berrow is higher than expected. The
SRR for leukaemia (all types combined) was significantly raised in Burnham North. However,
this group comprised several different types of leukaemia – half of which were Chronic
Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL), a cancer for which there is no scientific evidence of a link to
ionising radiation. Similarly high incidence rates for all leukaemias combined are found
elsewhere in Somerset and the South West. Expert advice cited in the SWCIS study is that
variations in registration rates for CLL – a cancer frequently detected on routine blood tests in
people with no cancer specific symptoms – are most likely to be due to differences in rates of
case ascertainment.
A.C3.25 In Burnham South and Highbridge the overall SRR for cancer was significantly raised but this
was largely accounted for by a high breast cancer incidence rate in 1999. This followed a round
of breast screening in these areas. SWCIS note that similar patterns of temporary increased
incidence have been found in other areas following breast screening.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 149
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
A.C3.26 SWCIS has found no evidence of increased risk of cancer linked to radiation in these wards.
A.C3.27 These results were presented to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the
Environment COMARE. The Committee agreed that the study showed no evidence of a link
between exposure to radiation from Hinkley Point Power Nuclear Station and increased
incidence of cancer in the Burnham areaXIX.
A.C3.28 Further comment has been provided by CERRIE. They noted that:
“In reports by Green Audit, Busby et al (Ref. 101) concluded that there was a statistical
significant excess of mortality from several types of cancer, including female breast cancer
and prostate cancer, in the proximity of Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset.
In contrast to some other studies around nuclear installations, the focus of this analysis
was not the power station itself but rather a point on mud flats, close to Burnham-on-Sea,
around which concentric circles were drawn. The reason for selecting this precise location
is not entirely clear. Furthermore, because of the high cure rate of breast cancer, the
interpretation of findings for mortality is problematic. Busby et al (Ref. 101) reported a
significant excess of breast cancer mortality in the ward of Burnham North, although there
was no excess of breast cancer deaths in the other wards adjacent to the mud flats. In a
subsequent Green Audit report, Busby and Rowe (Ref. 102) reported the results of a
household survey of the Burnham North ward. The authors claimed that there were
excesses of cancer of the breast, kidney and uterine cervix and of leukaemia associated
with exposure to man-made radioactivity via the local estuarine sands, related to
operations at Hinkley Point nuclear power station. However, a study by the South West
Cancer Intelligence Service, described by COMARE (Ref. 76), showed that the Green Audit
study only covered a small sample of the cases arising in the ward. In contrast, the
complete cancer registration data set for the ward the data showed no cancer excess,
other than for leukaemia. When this excess of leukaemia cases was studied, the majority
of the extra cases proved to be chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), a cancer not
considered by previous investigators to be associated with exposure to radiation.”
A.C3.29 Additional CERRIE comments on the Green Audit report further, establish that ‘the report is
technically flawed and the analytical methodology is highly suspect. The findings cannot be
considered reliable’ (Ref. 78).
A.C3.30 The repeated evidence that low discharges of radioactive effluents to the environment do not
cause elevated rates of cancer in the population is reassuring. Nonetheless, As previously
noted, Prof Kinlen raised a hypothesis that elevated rates of childhood leukaemia incidence
may represent a rare response to a common (but as yet unidentified) infection, and that
circumstances encouraging the prevention of exposure to infections in the early years of life,
such as social isolation, increase the risk of the disease when significant ‘population mixing’
occurs.
A.C3.31 This raises the understandable question as to whether some cancer incidence in Burnham and
other communities in the vicinity of Hinkley Point may be attributable to a cause or causes
linked to the power stations; if not directly resulting from radioactive discharges.
A.C3.32 In this context, the communities around Hinkley Point are not considered to be socially isolated.
XIX
www.comare.org.uk/statements/comare_statement_burnham.htm
150 | HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
c) Conclusion
A.C3.33 The best available scientific evidence does not support the view that discharges of low level
radioactive materials to the environment are linked causally to an unusual incidence of cancers
in local populations. This includes the incidence of childhood leukaemia which is
acknowledged to demonstrate an uneven distribution, including some instances of clustering
near nuclear installations.
A.C3.34 There is evidence that the incidence of childhood leukaemia may be elevated where population
mixing occurs between previously isolated (susceptible rural) communities and urban (well
mixed) communities. This may represent an abnormal response to a common infectious agent.
A.C3.35 It is reasonable to conclude that the population in the vicinity of Hinkley Point is currently well
mixed in nature, due to good communications with other areas of the country. Such well mixed
populations have not been shown to be associated with any increased incidence of childhood
leukaemia.
HINKLEY POINT C PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION – STAGE 2 | 151
HEALTH IMPACT APPRAISAL
`