Enabling Resilient UK Energy Infrastructure:

Natural Hazard Characterisation Technical Volumes

and Case Studies

Case Study 5:
Cottam

LC 0064_18CS5
 Legal Statement

© Energy Technologies Institute LLP (except where and to the extent expressly stated otherwise)

This document has been prepared for the Energy Technologies Institute LLP (ETI) by EDF Energy R&D
UK Centre Limited, the Met Office, and Mott MacDonald Limited.

This document is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on
which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining
from, any action on the basis of the content of this document.

This document should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

EDF Energy R&D UK Centre Limited, the Met Office, Mott MacDonald Limited and (for the avoidance
of doubt) ETI (We) make no representations and give no warranties or guarantees, whether express
or implied, that the content of this document is accurate, complete, up to date, or fit for any particular
purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by
you, any other party, or being used for any purpose, or containing any error or omission.

Except for death or personal injury caused by our negligence or any other liability which may not
be excluded by applicable law, We will not be liable for any loss or damage, whether in contract,
tort (including negligence), breach of statutory duty, or otherwise, even if foreseeable, arising under
or in connection with use of or reliance on any content of this document.

Any Met Office pre-existing rights in the document are protected by Crown Copyright and all
other rights are protected by copyright vested in the Energy Technologies Institute, the Institution of
Chemical Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. The Met Office aims to ensure
that its content is accurate and consistent with its best current scientific understanding. However, the
science which underlies meteorological forecasts and climate projections is constantly evolving.
Therefore, any element of its content which involves a forecast or a prediction should be regarded
as the Met Office’s best possible guidance, but should not be relied upon as if it were a statement
of fact.

(Statements, above, containing references to “We” or “our” shall apply to EDF Energy R&D UK
Case Study 5: Cottam

Centre Limited, the Met Office, Mott MacDonald Limited and ETI both individually and jointly.)

Authors: Sun Yan Evans, Iqbal Hassan (Mott MacDonald)

Chief Technical Officer: Hugo Winter (EDF Energy)

Version Date Details

0.1 12/03/18 Submitted for IPR
0.2 13/04/18 IPR comments addressed and submitted to CTO
1.0 10/05/18 CTO comments addressed and submitted to ETI
2.0 25/06/18 ETI and NHP3 Steering Committee comments addressed

2
 Preface

This document forms part of the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) project ‘Low Carbon
Electricity Generation Technologies: Review of Natural Hazards’, funded by the ETI and led in
delivery by the EDF Energy R&D UK Centre. The aim of the project has been to develop a consistent
methodology for the characterisation of natural hazards, and to produce a high-quality peer-reviewed
set of documents suitable for use across the energy industry to better understand the impact that
natural hazards may have on new and existing infrastructure. This work is seen as vital given the
drive to build new energy infrastructure and extend the life of current assets against the backdrop
of increased exposure to a variety of natural hazards and the potential impact that climate change may
have on the magnitude and frequency of these hazards.

The first edition of Enabling Resilient UK Energy Infrastructure: Natural Hazard Characterisation
Technical Volumes and Case Studies has been funded by the ETI and authored by EDF Energy
R&D UK Centre, with the Met Office and Mott MacDonald Limited. The ETI was active from 2007
to 2019, but to make the project outputs available to industry, organisations and individuals,
the ETI has provided a licence to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and Institution of Chemical Engineers
to exploit the intellectual property. This enables these organisations to make these documents available and also
update them as deemed appropriate.

The technical volumes outline the latest science in the field of natural hazard characterisation
and are supported by case studies that illustrate how these approaches can be used to better understand
the risks posed to UK infrastructure projects. The documents presented are split into a set of eleven technical
volumes and five case studies.

Each technical volume aims to provide an overview of the latest science available to characterise the natural
hazard under consideration within the specific volume. This includes a description of the phenomena
related to a natural hazard, the data and methodologies that can be used to characterise the hazard,
the regulatory context and emerging trends. These documents are aimed at the technical end-user
Case Study 5: Cottam

with some prior knowledge of natural hazards and their potential impacts on infrastructure,
who wishes to know more about the natural hazards and the methods that lie behind the
values that are often quoted in guideline and standards documents. The volumes are not intended
to be exhaustive and it is acknowledged that other approaches may be available to characterise a
hazard. It has also not been the intention of the project to produce a set of standard engineering
‘guidelines’ (i.e. a step-by-step ‘how to’ guide for each hazard) since the specific hazards and levels
of interest will vary widely depending on the infrastructure being built and where it is being built.
For any energy-related projects affected by natural hazards, it is recommended that additional site-
and infrastructure-specific analyses be undertaken by professionals. However, the approaches outlined

3
 Preface

aim to provide a summary of methods available for each hazard across the energy industry.
General advice on regulation and emerging trends are provided for each hazard as context, but
again it is advised that end-users investigate in further detail for the latest developments relating to the
hazard, technology, project and site of interest.

The case studies aim to illustrate how the approaches outlined in the technical volumes could be applied
at a site to characterise a specific set of natural hazards. These documents are aimed at the less technical
end-user who wants an illustration of the factors that need to be accounted for when characterising
natural hazards at a site where there is new or existing infrastructure. The case studies have been chosen
to illustrate several different locations around the UK with different types of site (e.g. offshore, onshore coastal
site, onshore river site, etc.). Each of the natural hazards developed in the volumes has been illustrated
for at least one of the case study locations. For the sake of expediency, only a small subset of all hazards
has been illustrated at each site. However, it is noted that each case study site would require additional
analysis for other natural hazards. Each case study should be seen as illustrative of the methods
outlined in the technical volumes and the values derived at any site should not be directly
used to provide site-specific values for any type of safety analysis. It is a project recommendation that
detailed site-specific analysis should be undertaken by professionals when analysing the safety and
operational performance of new or existing infrastructure. The case studies seek only to provide engineers and
end-users with a better understanding of this type of analysis.

Whilst the requirements of specific legislation for a sub-sector of energy industry (e.g. nuclear, offshore) will
take precedence, as outlined above, a more rounded understanding of hazard characterisation can be
achieved by looking at the information provided in the technical volumes and case studies together. For the
less technical end-user this may involve starting with a case study and then moving to the technical
volume for additional detail, whereas the more technical end-user may jump straight to the volume and then
cross-reference with the case study for an illustration of how to apply these methodologies at a specific
site. The documents have been designed to fit together in either way and the choice is up to the end-user.
Case Study 5: Cottam

The documents should be referenced in the following way (examples given for a technical volume and case
study):

ETI. 2018. Enabling Resilient UK Energy Infrastructure: Natural Hazard Characterisation Technical Volumes
and Case Studies, Volume 1 — Introduction to the Technical Volumes and Case Studies. IMechE, IChemE.

ETI. 2018. Enabling Resilient UK Energy Infrastructure: Natural Hazard Characterisation Technical Volumes
and Case Studies, Case Study 1 — Trawsfynydd. IMechE, IChemE.

4
 Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................... 6
1.1 Infrastructure at Cottam.............................................................6
1.2 Hydro-meteorological characteristics of Cottam.............................7
1.3 History of flooding in the River Trent............................................8

2. Characterisation of the natural hazard............................... 11

2.1 Site characteristics.................................................................11
2.1.1 Topography....................................................................11
2.1.2 Geology and hydrogeology...............................................12
2.1.3 Hydrology and drainage...................................................12
2.1.4 Existing flood defences......................................................13
2.2 Sources of flood risk...............................................................15
2.2.1 Fluvial flooding................................................................15
2.2.2 Tidal influence and extreme sea level...................................18
2.2.3 Astronomical tide.............................................................20
2.2.4 Wave............................................................................24
2.2.5 Groundwater flooding......................................................25
2.2.6 Artificial sources of flooding...............................................25
2.3 Other factors........................................................................26
2.3.1 Joint probability...............................................................26
2.3.2 Climate change allowance................................................26
2.3.3 Interdependency risk.........................................................29
2.4 Summary of key contributing factors to flood risk at Cottam............29

3. Conclusions.................................................................... 31
3.1 Recommendations..................................................................32
Case Study 5: Cottam

References.......................................................................... 33

Glossary............................................................................. 35

Abbreviations...................................................................... 36

Appendix: Assumptions and limitations................................... 37

5
 1. Introduction

This case study illustrates the appropriate use of the methodology from the technical volumes
for Cottam, England. Cottam is located in the East Midlands region of England. The site was
chosen as representative of an inland river environment. This case study provides an assessment
for the river flooding hazard. The aim of this case study is to assess flood risk, mainly from
fluvial and tidal sources; risk of flooding from other sources, such as surface water and ground
water flooding, have also been considered. All relevant key data associated with flooding,
such as river water levels, sea levels and river discharges, have also been presented. For more
information on this particular hazard, see Volume 5 — River Flooding.

1.1 Infrastructure at Cottam

The Cottam power station, owned by EDF Energy, is situated at the eastern edge of
Nottinghamshire on the west bank of the River Trent at Cottam village near Retford (Figure 1).
The site extends over 620 acres of mainly arable land. The station was commissioned in 1969
by the Central Electricity Generating Board. Another power station at West Burton on the west
bank of the River Trent is 5.6 km downstream of Cottam. The decommissioned High Marnham
power station on the west bank of the River Trent was 9.7 km upstream of Cottam. The power
station site is centred on National Grid Reference E481286, N379231. The surrounding
land and floodplain is protected by Environment Agency (EA) flood defences along the River
Trent (EA, 2009). The flood defences are maintained by EA. Information provided by EA has
confirmed the crest level of these defences which can provide protection against combined
fluvial and tidal flooding for up to a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) event.

The power station site at Cottam is located in Flood Zone 3a (high likelihood flooding area)
and benefits from the flood defences maintained by EA. The land surrounding the power station
is classified as less vulnerable in terms of flood risk in accordance with the National Planning
Policy Framework (MHCLG, 2018).
Case Study 5: Cottam

6
 1. Introduction

Figure 1. Location of Cottam power station in Retford in Nottinghamshire. (Sources: © 2017 Google LLC, used with
permission. Google and the Google logo are registered trademarks of Google LLC. Ordnance Survey data Crown
copyright database right © 2018)

1.2 Hydro-meteorological characteristics of Cottam

The stretch of the River Trent from Cromwell Weir to its confluence with the Humber Estuary is
tidally influenced (JBA, 2017). Cromwell Lock is located approximately 24 km upstream of
Cottam. Therefore, Cottam is within the tidally influenced reach of the Trent.

The tidal River Trent is navigable at the location of the power station. There are numerous water
level gauging stations on the Trent, as illustrated in Figure 2. The nearest flow gauging station
to Cottam is at Muskham on the Trent which is about 30 km upstream of Cottam. There are no
streams/rivers joining the Trent between Muskham and Torksey, adjacent to Cottam. Table 1
provides some key flow parameters of the River Trent at Muskham.

EDF Energy has no recorded incidents of flooding on the power station site, but historical
Case Study 5: Cottam

records suggest that the River Trent has a history of flooding. More details are provided in
Section 1.3.

7
 1. Introduction

Figure 2. Flow and water level gauge network on the River Trent and tributaries of the Trent (Cottam is adjacent to Torksey
Lock) (Source: Mott MacDonald)

Table 1. Flow characteristics of the River Trent at North Muskham (Station Number: 28022), about 30 km upstream of
Cottam. (Source: Mott MacDonald (2013); Marsh and Hannaford (2008) for QMED)

Observed and estimated flows Flow (m³/s)

Mean annual maxima flood (QMED*) 438.07
Highest recorded flow 1002.2 (27th February 1977)
20% AEP 589
10% AEP 673
5% AEP 794
2% AEP 1020
1.33% AEP 1136
1% AEP 1215
0.5% AEP 1433
0.1% AEP 2124
Note: Design peak flows of different AEP events are obtained from Mott MacDonald
Case Study 5: Cottam

2013 Modelling Study of Tidal Trent

1.3 History of flooding in the River Trent

There are records of many historic flooding events, both fluvial and tidal, in the tidal stretch of
the Trent around Cottam. In February 1795, significant river flooding occurred at Burton due to
breaching of the River Trent embankments with flood water propagating up to Lincoln. In March

*All technical terms marked in blue can be found in the Glossary section.

8
 1. Introduction

1947, the flood embankment along the Trent was breached, inundating 50,000 acres of land
in Gainsborough with approximately 2000 properties affected (RMS, 2007). In December
1965, flooding was widespread with water over 2 m deep. In the winter of 2000 flooding
occurred in Girton. The most severe tidal flooding took place in October and November 1954
because of a series of tidal surges breaching defences. Other large events were understood to
have occurred in October 1875 and March 1932.

The Flood Map data provided by EA, and reproduced in Figure 3, show the site’s flood
extent for four historical events. The flood information provided by EA for these four events is
summarised in Table 2. It indicates that the cause of flooding in these four events was primarily
insufficient channel capacity of the River Trent. There is no information on the depth or duration
of this flooding.

Table 2. Environment Agency historical flood information (Source: EA)

Map Flood Source of Cause of

Name Start date End date
reference vent code flooding flooding
EA034_ Lower Trent Channel capacity
2000 FEG_4030_12_ 12 Nov 12/11/2000 12/11/2000 Main river exceeded (no
NOV_2000 2000 raised defences)
Channel capacity
EA034_ Tidal Trent
1977 01/02/1977 01/02/1977 Main river exceeded (no
FEG_4030_1977 1977
raised defences)
Channel capacity
EA034_ Tidal Trent
1932 01/01/1932 01/01/1932 Main river exceeded (no
FEG_4030_1932 1932
raised defences)
1947 EA034_ Tidal Trent 01/03/1947 01/03/1947 Unknown Channel capacity
FEG_4030_1947 1947 exceeded (no
raised defences)
Case Study 5: Cottam

9
 1. Introduction

Figure 3. Map showing spatial outlines of historical flood events near Cottam. (Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey
data Crown copyright database right © 2018))
Case Study 5: Cottam

10
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

To better characterise the river flooding hazard and to achieve a good understanding of the risk
associated with a site, it is important to consider a wide range of factors that could contribute
to the risk to the subject site. Broadly, these considerations can be split into three broad
categories: site characteristics (e.g. topography, geology); different sources of flood risk (e.g.
fluvial sources, groundwater); other factors that may affect flood risk (e.g. climate change and
interdependencies). The rest of this section outlines how to assess these broad categories at the
Cottam site.

2.1 Site characteristics

2.1.1 Topography
Cottam power station is in the East Midlands region of England and in the River Trent catchment.
It is approximately 1.2 km south-west of the village of Cottam and 1.2 km east of the village of
Rampton. A location plan with key local features is provided in Figure 4.
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 4. Cottam power station — map of the local area with key local features. (Source: Mott MacDonald, contains
Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018)

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) ground elevation data with 1 m and 2 m resolutions (i.e. in
1 m x 1 m and 2 m x 2 m cells or pixels), as surveyed in July 2011, is available for most of the
area on the floodplain of the River Trent and for the power station site (Figure 5). The vertical
accuracy of the LIDAR data was typically ± 0.15 m.

11
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

The topographic survey data covering the power station site show that the ground elevation
is typically between 6.0 and 8.0 metres above ordnance datum (mAOD). The power station
on the east and south side has a relatively high embankment/defence (which encircles the
station). On the west side, the elevation is relatively low, between 4.8 and 5.6 mAOD along
the boundary of the site, and thus, flow spilling to the left bank floodplain will inundate this area.

Figure 5. Ground elevation from LIDAR (2011) at Cottam power station site and on the left bank floodplain of the River
Trent. (Source: EA)

2.1.2 Geology and hydrogeology

The British Geological Survey’s ‘Geology of Britain viewer’ (BGS, 2018) suggests the area near
Cottam power station is underlain by a bedrock of Mercia Mudstone with superficial deposits
Case Study 5: Cottam

of sand, gravel and some clays (River deposits, Quaternary).

2.1.3 Hydrology and drainage

The River Trent (an EA main river) is located approximately 1 km south-east of the site. It flows
in a northerly direction but encounters a sharp meander that changes the flow direction to the
south for a short distance, before turning north again.

Seymour Drain, maintained by the Inland Drainage Board (IDB), drains the water north through
the power station-owned land. It joins the River Trent approximately 3 km north of Cottam. The

12
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

flow into the Trent from the Seymour Drain is controlled by a pumping station located adjacent
to the Trent (Figure 4). An unnamed drain flows east adjacent to Torksey Ferry Road, and joins
Seymour Drain approximately 200 m south-east of the site.

Several open bodies of water are close to the site, and are used by the power station as
storage ponds for pulverised fuel ash (PFA), a by-product of coal burning. Approximately 1.5 km
south-east of the site, on the inside bend of the meander of the Trent, there are two large wetland
lakes used as habitat for wetland birds.

There is a flow gauging station on the River Trent at North Muskham approximately 30 km
upstream of the Cottam power station, with flow data available from the early 1960s. Other
local gauging stations can be found at HM Government (2018). The annual maximum flow
(AMAX) is shown in Figure 6 together with mean annual maxima flood (QMED).
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 6. Annual maximum flow (AMAX) and mean annual maxima flood (QMED) in the River Trent at North Muskham
(approximately 30 km upstream of Cottam). (Source: NRFA (2018))

2.1.4 Existing flood defences

Formal flood defences exist along the Trent close to Cottam power station. They are maintained
by EA (Figure 7) and are classified as ‘soft defences’ (here being earth embankments). They
offer up to a 1% AEP Standard of Protection (SoP) according to the EA data. EA’s flood defence
database, also called the Asset Information Management System (AIMS), records the defences

13
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

as having a crest level of 7.9 mAOD at the closest point to Cottam power station. However,
AIMS has less detail than LIDAR as it only contains single crest levels for long sections of
defence. In the same area, EA’s 2 m LIDAR indicates that the crest level varies between 7.6 and
8.7 mAOD.

Although the existing flood defences maintained by EA provide a certain level of protection,
future funding for the maintenance of these defences is not certain. As the funding requirements
to continue maintaining and building assets are expected to increase in the future, EA has
recognised that there will be areas where flood risk is likely to increase, and the risk from flood
defences being breached remains a reality. Therefore, it would not be an unfair assumption that
areas on both banks along the tidal stretch of the Trent will remain vulnerable to flood risk; most
of the historic floods in the tidal Trent were triggered by breaching of flood defences. As such,
risk of flooding at Cottam power station from joint fluvial and tidal events remains a possibility,
and very likely in a future climate change scenario, where sea level is predicted to rise by 1.21
m in the Humber Estuary over the next 100 years (see Section 2.4 and Table 8), and both
rainfall and river flows are predicted to increase over the next century.

Different infrastructure and assets will have different design lives. When assessing an existing
asset, it is necessary both to consider the flood risk at the current time, and also to the end of the
asset’s design life and beyond. Similarly, when building a new asset, it is very important to
consider the flood risk throughout its whole design life. For infrastructure such as nuclear power
plants, it is also vitally important to understanding the flood risk during the decommissioning
stage, to ensure that the most sustainable solution is in place to effectively manage the risk. For
these reasons, the anticipated design life should be taken into account when deciding the level
of protection for an asset and characterising the natural hazard under consideration.
Case Study 5: Cottam

14
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Figure 7. Existing EA defences near Cottam power station (only shows defences on the left bank).
(Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018))

2.2 Sources of flood risk

2.2.1 Fluvial flooding
Flood zones (Zone 1, 2 and 3) are geographic areas that have been defined according to
varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on flood risk maps published by EA. Each
zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area. The definitions of the flood zones used
by the Government are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Definition of flood zones as provided by EA.

Flood zone Definition

Zone 1
Land having a less than 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding. (Shown as ‘clear’ on the Flood
Low
Case Study 5: Cottam

Map — all land outside Zones 2 and 3)

Probability
Zone 2
Land having between a 1% AEP and 0.1% AEP of river flooding; or land having between a
Medium
0.5% AEP and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding. (Land shown in light blue on the Flood Map)
Probability
Zone 3a
Land having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding; or land having a 0.5% or greater AEP of
High
sea flooding. (Land shown in dark blue on the Flood Map)
Probability
Zone 3b This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. Local
The planning authorities should identify in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments areas of
Functional functional floodplain and their boundaries accordingly, in agreement with the Environment
Floodplain Agency. (Not separately distinguished from Zone 3a on the Flood Map)

Note: these flood zones refer to the probability of rivers and sea flooding, ignoring the presence of defences.

15
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

The current EA Flood Maps (Figures 8 and 9) indicate that Cottam power station is in Flood
Zone 2 and also partly in Flood Zone 3, i.e. in medium and high probability zones in terms of
flooding.
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 8. Zone 3 (high likelihood, upper plate) and Zone 2 (low likelihood, bottom plate) river flood outlines at Cottam.
(Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018))

16
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Figure 9. Zone 3 (high likelihood) and Zone 2 (low likelihood) river flood outlines at Cottam power station site.
(Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018))
Case Study 5: Cottam

Although EA’s Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) study reported that no flooding in the
floodplain is expected in the defended scenario for a 1% AEP event, assuming the flood defence
is in excellent condition and would not be breached during a 1% AEP event. It is advisable to
consult EA on the flood outline from flood events more severe than a 1% AEP flood, and flood
levels associated with climate change scenarios.

17
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

2.2.2 Tidal influence and extreme sea level

The River Trent flows into the Humber estuary near Faxfleet. Figure 10 shows the location of the
Trent confluence with the Humber as well as the key river gauging stations on the Humber and
the Trent.

Figure 10. Map showing the location of the Trent confluence with the Humber and key gauging locations.
(Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018))

Tides heavily influence the water level in the Humber estuary, including the water level at the
location where the Trent joins the Humber. As a result the tidal Trent is under the daily influence
of the tide in the sea. The tidal influence from the Humber extends further upstream of the Trent
Case Study 5: Cottam

for over 80 km; the tidal limit is at the Cromwell Lock/Cromwell Weir (for location, see Figure
2). Cromwell Weir is over 20 km upstream of Cottam on the Trent. Thus, the Cottam area is
well within the tidal influence zone. Therefore, when assessing the flood risk at Cottam power
station, the influence from the Humber, especially under extreme sea level conditions, also needs
to be considered.

Practical guidance for design with consideration of extreme sea levels along the UK coast was
published in 2011 by EA (EA, 2011a). It provides Coastal Flood Boundary (CFB) data for the

18
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

UK mainland and islands. The CFB data at Immingham on the Humber are shown in Table 4.
The key outputs from that project include:
• a consistent set of extreme peak sea levels of different AEP, ranging from 100% AEP to
0.01% AEP events;
• extreme peak sea levels available for a total of 16 AEP events (this dataset does not
generally cover the estuary);
• peak sea level values along the coastline at a spacing of about two kilometres. This
enables rapid selection of appropriate levels and reduces the need for long distance

interpolation;
• advice on generating an appropriate total storm tide curve for use with extreme sea
levels. Standard surge tide shapes are given for each part of the coast.

For Cottam power station, the nearest CFB data point (chainage 3886 km, i.e. the distance
from Newlyn) is shown in Figure 11. The extreme levels range between 4.16 and 5.72 mAOD
for the 100% AEP and 0.01% AEP; the lower bound level is 4.06 and 5.22 mAOD and the
upper bound level is 4.26 and 6.22 mAOD respectively. It should be noted that these extreme
values do not include allowance for sea level rise due to climate change.
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 11. Location of nearest CFB data points for Cottam in the Humber Estuary at CFB chainage 3886 km.
(Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018))

19
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Table 4. Extreme sea level at Immingham: CFB data from the nearest data point (chainage 3886 km).
(Source: CFB data (EA, 2011b), base year 2008.)

Lower and upper bound

Return period Extreme sea Confidence levels (mAOD)
AEP (%)
(year) level (mAOD) Interval1
Lower bound Upper bound
100 1 4.16 0.1 4.06 4.26
50 2 4.26 0.1 4.16 4.36
20 5 4.4 0.1 4.3 4.5
10 10 4.51 0.1 4.41 4.61
5 20 4.62 0.1 4.52 4.72
4 25 4.66 0.1 4.56 4.76
2 50 4.77 0.1 4.67 4.87
1.33 75 4.83 0.2 4.63 5.03
1 100 4.87 0.2 4.67 5.07
0.67 150 4.95 0.2 4.75 5.15
0.5 200 5 0.2 4.8 5.2
0.4 250 5.02 0.2 4.82 5.22
0.33 300 5.06 0.2 4.86 5.26
0.2 500 5.15 0.3 4.85 5.45
0.1 1000 5.28 0.3 4.98 5.58
,
0.01 10,000 5.72 0.5 5.22 6.22
¹A location of interest 50 km outside the influence of the raw SSJPM analysis site may require further additions to the
Confidence Interval (EA, 2011a).

2.2.3 Astronomical tide

Cottam power station is adjacent to the Trent and is about 58 km upstream of the tidal Trent’s
confluence with the Humber. The tidal influence from the Humber on the water levels in the
Trent near Cottam is evident from historical records. Figure 10 shows the locations of several
Case Study 5: Cottam

gauging stations, i.e. the tidal gauge at Immingham on the Humber, and the water level gauges
at Torksey, Gainsborough and Keadby on the River Trent.

Tidal levels based on observed tidal records are available at Immingham from 1959 to 2017.
Yearly extreme tidal values (yearly maximum) are also available at Immingham from 1959 to
2017; both datasets can be downloaded from the online British Oceanographic Data Centre
(BODC) database (BODC, 2018).

20
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Examples of spring and neap tides from Immingham, together with CFB extreme sea levels, are
shown in Figure 12. Yearly maximum tidal levels from 1990 to 2017 are shown in Figures 13
and 14 along with CFB data.

River levels for the last five days, and the highest recorded levels for the river gauges at Torksey,
Gainsborough and Keadby can be viewed online (HM Government, 2018). The five-day
water levels for a period in February 2018 at these three gauges, along with highest recorded
water levels, are shown in Figures 15, 16 and 17. The full set of historical data may be
obtained from EA upon request. Data availabilities are (as of 2018): Torksey: 1972 to date;
Gainsborough: 1993 to date; Keadby: 1993 to date.
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 12. Tidal gauge data at Immingham on the Humber (BODC tide gauge) and nearest CFB data (at chainage
3886 km) from different AEP events; tidal data shown for a selected period (full year’s data and historical data are also
available on BODC site). (Source: EA)

21
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Figure 13. Extreme yearly tidal value (yearly maximum) at Immingham on the Humber (BODC tide gauge) and nearest
CFB data (at chainage 3886 km) from different AEP events. (Source: EA)
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 14. Extreme yearly tidal value (yearly maximum) at Immingham on the Humber (BODC tide gauge) and nearest
CFB data (at chainage 3886 km) from different AEP events at lower bound of confidence interval. (Source: EA)

22
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Figure 15. Water level data at Torksey gauge (adjacent to Cottam) on the River Trent. (Source: EA)
Case Study 5: Cottam

Figure 16. Water level data at Gainsborough gauge on the River Trent. (Source: EA)

23
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Figure 17. Water level data at Keadby gauge on the River Trent. (Source: EA)

2.2.4 Wave
Wave data for the Humber Estuary and North Sea can be extracted from WaveNet, Cefas’s
strategic wave monitoring network for the United Kingdom (Cefas, 2018). There is one current
monitoring deployment at Amethyst and two historic deployments at Spurn Head and at Donna
Nook by Acoustic Wave and Current Profiler (AWAC).

The wave effect in the Humber estuary is one of the key factors for consideration when
assessing flood risk along the Humber. However, at the confluence of the tidal Trent with the
Case Study 5: Cottam

Humber, which is about 60 km from the mouth of the Humber Estuary (Spurn Point), the wave
effect is less significant with an estimated significant wave height of less than 0.5 m. The wave
effect diminishes moving upstream of the Trent. Cottam is located nearly 58 km further upstream
of the Trent confluence with the Humber; the wave effect in the Trent near Cottam power station
is negligible and has no discernible effect on the water level.

24
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

2.2.5 Groundwater flooding

High groundwater levels were encountered in 2000 at National Grid’s site next to Cottam
power station, with varying depths between 0.2 m and 4.2 m below ground level (Mott
MacDonald, 2013). The 2013 report provides a generalised assessment of the susceptibility
of the area around the Cottam 400 kV substation to groundwater flooding and suggests that the
site is at a relatively high risk (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Environment Agency Groundwater Flooding Susceptibility Map — Cottam power station area.
(Source: EA, contains EA information © 2018 EA and database right. Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright
Ordnance Survey — National Grid EL 100024241)

2.2.6 Artificial sources of flooding

Cottam power station is located approximately 350 m north-west of a storage pond used by the
Case Study 5: Cottam

power station to store PFA. Another PFA storage pond exists approximately 600 m to the east
of the site. A review of the EA reservoir flooding map indicates that part of the site is at risk of
flooding from the PFA storage ponds (Figure 19). The EA flood map shows the area that might
be flooded if a reservoir (pond) were to fail and release the water it holds.

Given the very low likelihood of reservoir failure, the flood risk to Cottam power station from
reservoirs is considered to be a secondary source. It is not expected to be significant compared
to the risk from fluvial flooding, provided that the reservoir is properly maintained and regularly
inspected.

25
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Figure 19. Environment Agency map of the risk of flooding from reservoirs at Cottam.
(Source: EA (contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright database right © 2018))

2.3 Other factors

2.3.1 Joint probability
The primary source of potential flooding at Cottam is associated with both fluvial and tidal
sources. Therefore, a multivariate joint probability analysis (river flow and sea level) should be
considered for assessing flooding at Cottam power station. The flood risks from other sources
(surface water, groundwater and artificial sources) are regarded as secondary sources. They
should also be considered when designing site drainage systems. A full analysis is outside the
scope of this case study; for more information about the methodologies behind this type of
Case Study 5: Cottam

analysis see Volume 5 — River Flooding.

2.3.2 Climate change allowance

Making an allowance for climate change in flood risk assessment will help to minimise
vulnerability and provides resilience to flooding and coastal change in the future. The guidance
on Flood Risk Assessment, with consideration of the latest climate change projections, can be
found through the Government website (EA, 2017)

26
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

To assess how fluvial and coastal flood risk may change in the future, it is necessary to consider
climate change allowances for:
• peak river flow by river basin;
• peak rainfall intensity;
• sea level rise;
• offshore wind speed and extreme wave height.

These allowances are based on climate change projections and different scenarios of carbon
dioxide (CO²) emissions to the atmosphere. There are different allowances for different epochs
or periods of time over the next century. EA will use these allowances as benchmarks when
providing advice on flood risk assessments and strategic flood risk assessments.

When assessing tidal flood risk, in addition to considering the increases in fluvial flow and
rainfall intensity due to climate change, it is especially important to consider the sea level rise
alongside increases in offshore wind speeds and extreme wave heights. A summary of different
allowances for climate change is provided in Table 5.

Table 5. Humber River basin district peak river flow allowances due to climate change (Source: EA (2017))

Total potential Total potential Total potential

change anticipated change anticipated change anticipated
Allowance category
for the ‘2020s’ for the ‘2050s’ for the ‘2080s’
(2015 to 2039) (2040 to 2069) (2070 to 2115)
Upper End 20% 30% 50%
Higher Central 15% 20% 30%
Central 10% 15% 20%
Sea level allowance
Case Study 5: Cottam

Table 6 provides the sea level allowance values across the coast of England (Cottam power
station is in the East Midlands). Thus, for Cottam power station, the climate change allowance
values for this area should be applied to assess the impact on flooding of projected future sea
level rise. The power station, though an inland site, is well inside the zone of regular tidal
influence, and thus, future sea level rise would have a considerable impact on flooding at this
site.

27
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

These allowances account for slow land movement due to ‘glacial isostatic adjustment’ resulting
from the release of pressure after ice that covered large parts of northern Britain melted at the
end of the last ice age. Practically, this means that the northern part of the country is slowly rising
and the southern part is slowly sinking. Therefore, net sea level rise is less for the North West
and North East than the rest of the country.

Table 6. Sea level allowance for each epoch in millimetres (mm) per year with cumulative sea level rise for each epoch in
parentheses (baseline year of 1990). (Source: EA (2017))

1990 to 2026 to 2056 to 2086 to Cumulative

Region of England 2025 2055 2085 2115 rise 1990 to
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 2115 (m)

East, East Midlands,

4 (140) 8.5 (255) 12 (360) 15 (450) 1.21
London, South East
South West 3.5 (122.5) 8 (240) 11.5 (345) 14.5 (435) 1.14
North West,
2.5 (87.5) 7 (210) 10 (300) 13 (390) 0.99
North East

Wind and wave height allowance

Table 7 provides offshore wind speed and extreme wave height allowance set by EA for the UK
coast. They apply to the Humber estuary (into which the River Trent flows).

Table 7. Offshore wind speed and extreme wave height allowance (baseline year of 1990). (Source: EA (2017))

Applies around all of the UK coast 1990 to 2055 2056 to 2115

Offshore wind speed allowance +5% +10%
Offshore wind speed sensitivity test +10% +10%
Extreme wave height allowance +5% +10%
Extreme wave height sensitivity test +10% +10%
Case Study 5: Cottam

Considering potential climate change impact, the extreme sea level could rise from 6.22 mAOD
(value taken from the upper bound of the confidence interval in Table 4) to 7.35 mAOD in
0.01% AEP tidal event by 2115 (sea level rise of 1.133 m is added corresponding to the
2008 to 2115 horizon; note again that base year for the CFB data is 2008), which is only 0.5
m below the current defence crest (just within the freeboard). Such extreme sea levels, combined
with very small fluvial events, may compromise the defence height.

28
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

2.3.3 Interdependency risk

The electricity generated by Cottam power station joins the National Grid to provide power to
a wide community and businesses. When assessing the level of resilience to flooding of any
infrastructure such as the Cottam power station, in addition to examining the asset itself it is also
important to assess the interdependency between different assets, to understand the cascade
effect of the asset failure in the interdependency chain, and develop necessary resilience
measures and solutions to ensure the system as a whole is resilient to flooding.

2.4 Summary of key contributing factors to flood risk at Cottam

Sections 2.1 to 2.3 illustrate the key contributing factors to the flood risk at Cottam. Table 8
provides a summary of key flood defence and flow parameters of the tidal Trent at Torksey (near
Cottam), as well as the key tidal parameters in the sea at the mouth of the Humber for both
present-day and future climate change conditions. The values presented in Table 8 give an
overview of the indicative flood risk at Cottam from the key influential factors.
Case Study 5: Cottam

29
 2. Characterisation of the natural hazard

Table 8. Key characteristic parameters of the tidal Trent at Torksey (at Cottam), at North Muskham (30 km upstream of
Cottam) and at Immingham in the Humber Estuary. (Source: Mott MacDonald 2018)

Data Unit Value Comment

Flood defence crest on Trent’s

mAOD 7.6 to 7.90 AMIS and LIDAR
bank at Cottam
Occurred on 10/11/2000
Highest recorded water level
mAOD 7.31 AMAX on 09/11/2000 at
at Torksey
North Muskham was 774.31
Highest recorded water level
mAOD 5.13 Immingham is in Humber Estuary
at Immingham
AMAX flow at same day of
Highest water level at Torksey
highest water level recorded m3/s 774.31
occurred on 10/11/2000
at Torksey
Maximum of AMAX at North North Muskham (30 km
m3/s 1000
Muskham upstream of Cottam)
North Muskham (30 km
QMED at North Muskham m3/s 438.00
upstream of Cottam)

CFB at Humber Estuary mAOD 5.72 (0.01% AEP) Median confidence value

mAOD 6.22 (0.01% AEP) Upper confidence bound value

Median confidence value + sea

CFB + sea level rise mAOD 6.85 (0.01% AEP)
level rise by 2115
Upper confidence bound
mAOD 7.35 (0.01% AEP)
value + sea level rise by 2115
In Humber Estuary and North
Wave height m 3.5 to 5.0
Sea
Case Study 5: Cottam

30
 3. Conclusions

Flood risk to the Cottam power station site has been assessed in this report based on the data,
information and study reports available online and in published scientific literature. Flooding
from all probable sources (e.g. ground and surface water, fluvial and tidal, and combined
fluvial-tidal events, and waves and surges) have been considered in the assessment.

The power station site at Cottam is situated in Flood Zone 3a, i.e. in a high likelihood flooding
area. The land surrounding the power station is protected by EA flood defences against
combined fluvial and tidal flooding up to a 1% AEP. EDF Energy has no recorded incidents of
flooding at Cottam power station. However, many historic flood events have occurred in the
stretch of the tidal Trent, e.g. in 1795, 1875, 1932, 1947, 1954 and 2000; most or all
of them were tidal flooding and occurred due to either breaching or over-topping of the flood
embankments along the Trent.

The site is free from fluvial and tidal flooding due to the presence of the flood defences along
the Trent maintained by EA. Surface water flooding was observed in the neighbourhood of the
power station. Groundwater flooding was also noted at the site; based on EA’s groundwater
flooding map, the site has a relatively high risk of groundwater flooding.

The tidal Trent is under daily influence of tide from the sea through the Humber estuary; the
highest recorded water level at the Torksey river gauge (near Cottam power station) was 7.31
mAOD on 10th November 2000. The extreme sea levels presented in CFB datasets suggest
that the water level in the Humber Estuary near Immingham varies between 4.16 mAOD and
5.72 mAOD for 100% AEP and 0.01% AEP flood events respectively. Wave data from Cefas’s
WaveNet recorded wave height above 3.5 m within the Humber Estuary, and above 5.5 m
in the North Sea near the mouth of the Humber Estuary. However, the wave effect at Cottam is
considered to be negligible because of the distance from the sea.
Case Study 5: Cottam

Flood outlines at Cottam power station published by EA are available online in an Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) shape file and MapInfo TAB file for Flood Zone 2 and Zone
3. However, detailed flood maps for different design flood events between 50% AEP and
0.1% AEP could be obtained from site-specific Strategic Flood Risk Management (SFRM) and
Flood Risk Management (FRM) studies conducted by EA, local councils and other development
partners.

31
 3. Conclusions

Climate change allowances for flows and sea level should be considered when assessing future
flood risk to Cottam, for example up to 2115:
• an increase in fluvial flow by: 20%, 30% and 50% respectively for Central, Higher
Central and Upper End allowance category;
• an increase in sea level of 1.21 m with respect to the baseline year 1990.

The joint probability of a fluvial event and a tidal event should also be considered when
assessing the flood risk for Cottam power station. Apart from considering the resilience to
flooding for an individual asset, it is also vitally important to understand the interdependencies
between different assets to ensure the system is resilient. As ever, it is important to consider the
flood risk during the design life of the infrastructure and also beyond to its decommissioning
stage when deciding the level of river flooding to protect against.

3.1 Recommendations
To determine design conditions for any new development work and obtain planning permission,
a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) study must be carried out. It is also necessary to
meet the requirements of NPPF in England (MHCLG, 2018) (equivalent policies exist in Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland) and local planning policy. Local plans should apply a sequential,
risk-based approach to the location of development, where possible to avoid flood risk to
people and property and effectively manage any residual risk. There is also a need to take
account of the potential impacts of climate change; this can be done by applying the
Sequential Test and, if necessary, the Exception Test.

The power station site is located in Flood Zone 3a. As land surrounding the site is classified as
less vulnerable in accordance with the NPPF, the development is permitted by the NPPF without
the need for the Exception Test. In carrying out site-specific FRA, a hydraulic model should be
used or updated if there is an existing model available (there are existing hydraulic models for
Case Study 5: Cottam

this site, e.g. Mott MacDonald, 2013 and EDF Energy, 2014). Flows used for modelling
should be derived following Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) methodology for different
magnitudes of events, such as 50%, 20%, 10%, 4%, 3.33%, 2%, 1.33% and 1% AEP events,
and should also consider climate change and extreme flood events, such as 0.5% and 0.1% AEP
events. Flood risk should be assessed using the most up-to-date data, hydrology and updated
hydraulic model as necessary. Any protection work and new development, resilient to flooding,
should comply with the Government’s development and adaptation plan (HM Government,
2016).

32
 References

BGS. 2018. Geology of Britain viewer. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geol-

ogyOfBritain/viewer.html (accessed on 10th May 2018).

BODC. 2018. UK Tide Gauge Network. https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/hosted_data_sys-

tems/sea_level/uk_tide_gauge_network/ (accessed on 10th May 2018).

Cefas. 2018. WaveNet. https://www.cefas.co.uk/cefas-data-hub/wavenet/ (accessed

on 10th May 2018).

EA. 2009. River Trent: Catchment flood management plan. https://www.gov.uk/govern-

ment/publications/river-trent-catchment-flood-management-plan (accessed on 10th May
2018).

EA. 2011a. Coastal Flood Boundary Conditions for UK Mainland and Islands.
Project: SC060064/TR4: Practical guidance design sea levels. Available at: https://as-
sets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/291222/scho0111btkk-e-e.pdf (accessed on 10th May 2018).

EA. 2011b. Coastal Design Sea Levels — Coastal Flood Boundary Extreme Sea Levels.
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/coastal-design-sea-levels-coastal-flood-boundary-extreme-sea-
levels (accessed on 10th May 2018).

EA. 2017. Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances. https://www.gov.uk/guid-

ance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances (accessed on 10th May 2018).

EA. 2018. Main Rivers Consultation. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/

wiyby/151293.aspx (accessed on 10th May 2018).
Case Study 5: Cottam

EDF Energy. 2014. Environmental Report, Full Planning Application for the Operation of an
Ash Processing Plant, Cottam Power Station. Available at: http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.
uk/planningsearch (accessed on 10th May 2018).

HM Government. 2016. National Flood Resilience Review. Available at: https://www.

gov.uk/government/publications/national-flood-resilience-review (accessed on 10th May
2018).

33
 References

HM Government. 2018. River and sea levels in England. https://flood-warning-informa-

tion.service.gov.uk/river-and-sea-levels (accessed on 10th May 2018).

JBA. 2017. Cromwell Weir HEP Hydraulic Impacts Modelling Report. Available at: https://
consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/canal-and-river-trust/supporting_documents/Hy-
draulic%20Impacts%20Modelling%20Report.pdf (accessed on 10th May 2018).

Marsh TJ, Hannaford J. (Eds). 2008. UK Hydrometric Register. Hydrological data UK series.
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Available at: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/3093/1/
HydrometricRegister_Final_WithCovers.pdf (accessed on 10th May 2018).

MHCLG. 2018. National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/

government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf
(accessed on 10th May 2018).

Mott MacDonald. 2013. National Grid Asset Flood Resilience Flood Risk Assessment, Cottam
400kV Substation.

NRFA. 2018. Station 28022 — Trent at North Muskham. http://nrfa.ceh.ac.uk/data/sta-

tion/peakflow/28022 (accessed on 10th May 2018).

RMS. 2007. 1947 UK River Floods: 60-Year Retrospective. Available at: http://forms2.
rms.com/rs/729-DJX-565/images/fl_1947_uk_river_floods.pdf (accessed on 10th May
2018).
Case Study 5: Cottam

34
 Glossary

Design flood
Flood of a given flow used in fluvial designs (e.g. height of an embankment or size of a bridge
or culvert) is known as design flood. It is usual to express how often floods could be larger than
the design flood, which is known as flood frequency, often expressed as a return period. Flood
frequency can alternatively be expressed in terms of an AEP, which is the inverse of the return
period.

EA main river
The Environment Agency classifies large rivers and streams as ‘main rivers’; other rivers are
called ordinary watercourses. See more functional definitions at EA (2018).

Exception Test
A method of managing flood risk while still allowing necessary development to occur; this test
is only appropriate for use when there are large areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3, where the
Sequential Test alone cannot deliver acceptable sites, but where some continuing development
is necessary for wider sustainable development reasons.

QMED
The mean annual maxima flood; QMED has an annual exceedance probability of 50% AEP.

Sequential Test
A flood risk assessment approach for ensuring new development in areas with the lowest
probability of flooding, i.e. in Flood Zone 1; a sequential approach should be used in areas
known to be at risk from any form of flooding.
Case Study 5: Cottam

35
 Abbreviations

AEP Annual exceedance probability

AIMS Asset Information Management System
AMAX Annual maximum flow
AOD Above Ordinance Datum
AWAC Acoustic Wave and Current Profiler
BGS British Geological Survey
BODC British Oceanographic Data Centre
Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
CFB Coastal Flood Boundary
CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan
CO2 Carbon dioxide
EA Environment Agency
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
FEH Flood Estimation Handbook
FRA Flood Risk Assessment
FRM Flood Risk Management
IDB Inland Drainage Board
JBA Jeremy Benn Associates
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
mAOD Metre Above Ordinance Datum
MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
NRFA National River Flow Archives
QMED Mean annual maxima flood
PFA Pulverised fuel ash
RMS Risk Management Solutions
SFRM Strategic Flood Risk Management
Case Study 5: Cottam

SoP Standard of Protection

36
 Appendix: Assumptions and limitations

The analyses in this case study are subject to a number of assumptions and limitations which are
listed below:

• Flood outlines presented in this case study are taken from EA’s online maps. They are based
on SFRM, FRM or broad scale mapping studies, and should only be used as a first source
of information for planning purposes. Site-specific flood risk management studies should be
carried out to obtain planning permission for any development work.

• Cottam site is located in Flood Zone 3a; however, such qualification may change in the
future based on updates and/or improvements of flood outlines by EA; the recommendation
is to obtain EA’s up-to-date flood outlines.

• EA’s flood maps suggest that the Cottam site is benefitting from existing flood defences
along the Trent for up to for 1% AEP event, assuming those defences are in excellent condition.
As such, it is advisable to consult EA on the flood outline from events more severe than 1%
AEP flood, and for flood levels associated with climate change scenarios.

• Hydrological design peak flows presented in this case study on the Trent at North Muskham are
based on a 2013 modelling study. As such, hydrological flow estimates and flood outlines
may change in the future as more data become available.

• Flood defence height is based on topographical survey data captured prior to 2013. As
such, these values should be used with caution, and should be validated through new field
survey and latest LIDAR data.

• All model-predicted flood outlines are based on fixed river bed condition with bed elevation
data derived from historical topographical surveys; whereas the tidal Trent is morphologically
Case Study 5: Cottam

active, and thus, physical changes in the river bed could influence the channel capacity and
the flood outlines. It is recommended that the model-predicted flood levels and outlines
should be used with caution.

• Sea levels, i.e. those taken from the CFB dataset and presented in this case study, were
published in 2011. EA is currently updating this dataset and thus future flood risk assessment
should be based on the updated CFB data, once they become available.

37
 Appendix: Assumptions and limitations

• Sea level rise prediction has considerable uncertainties, and the upper and lower bound
values could vary more than ±0.5 m around the median values. As such, predicted flood
outlines due to sea level rise should be used with caution, and if required (for purpose of
design), sensitivity analysis should be carried out using modelling techniques and using
upper and lower bound values.

• As Cottam power station is more than 100 km away from the North Sea along the waterway
through the Humber, the use or the effect of CFB extreme sea levels and extreme tidal
levels at the power station should be inferred through regional models or correlation analysis,
rather than direct extrapolation or interpolation of the sea levels.
Case Study 5: Cottam

38
LC 0064_18CS5