Roy Pumfrey, Cannington resident and Stop Hinkley spokesman has a number of concerns about the new EDF Sedgemoor Campus off Bath Road.The opening of ‘Barcode City’, the Bath Road hostel for Hinkley C workers (‘Hinkley Campus open’, Mercury, February 26) serves yet again to highlight the multiple problems with this project.

Why is the ‘campus’ so small and so late on the scene? Rooms for 986 may sound a lot, but EDF have just announced that they want a 2,400 bed hostel at Sizewell in Suffolk.
Oh, and it is a hostel by the way, not a hotel as a recent BBC radio programme claimed. If it’s only for Hinkley workers and the public can’t get a room, it’s a hostel!

And why have we had to wait until the pressure on the local rental property market was so great before any EDF accommodation has appeared? One bedroom rents locally have risen from £380pcm 18 months ago to around £550 now. That’s a 45 per cent increase that people not working at Hinkley simply won’t have been able to afford.

EDF is forever banging on about 25,000 Hinkley C jobs. It would be more honest of them if they admitted that they mean 24,100 notices of termination, as there are just 900 permanent jobs at HPC, if and when it is ever working. The prospect of that happening gets less by the week.

The French Government is taking nuclear back under state control, which makes Hinkley an oddity, and EDF can’t get Flamanville to work, which puts the vital UK Government loan guarantees for Hinkley C in danger of disappearing.

The future fate of the Bath Road site was left hanging in your article. Let’s be in no doubt about what won’t be happening. The nature of the blunt instrument that is a Development Consent Order means the only permanent legacy Bridgewater will see is the power station and an enormous radioactive waste store, twice the size of what EDF originally proposed.

All the temporary structures – the jetty, two hostel sites, park and rides, office blocks, freight lay-downs etc etc – have to be removed. EDF has already said its fantasy is to spirit the Bath Road units away to its improbable development at Sizewell. As for the sites, acres of tumbleweed are all we have to look forward to.

This text has been copied from an East Anglian Daily Times article (01/03/19) which can be found here

Suffolk authorities have again rejected proposals for the county’s new multi billion pound nuclear power station - telling energy bosses their plans are still not good enough to support.

Councils said they were frustrated by the lack of detail in EDF Energy’s latest Sizewell C consultation and urged the company to work with them to show the project’s benefits can still outweigh its disadvantages.

Responding to the consultation on Friday, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council said that while they support the principle of a new power station they were disappointed EDF Energy’s plans did not contain as much information as hoped.

EDF launched stage three of its consultation on January 4 including details of a two villages A12 bypass to mitigate the effects of construction traffic, a Theberton bypass, and a link road between Yoxford and Sizewell.

It also featured further details on the revised accommodation campus for 2,400 workers at Eastbridge, two park and rides in Wickham Market and Darsham and a freight management facility at Seven Hills, near Ipswich.

The £14 billion project is expected to create thousands of jobs and bring around £100m to the economy during construction.

But Suffolk councils say they have been left with grave concerns about the potential impact on roads, tourism and the surrounding landscape, which includes RSPB Minsmere and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, and claim much more information is needed to resolve their fears.

They were particularly concerned with the “in combination effects” of other projects proposed for the area, including ScottishPower Renewables’ plans for a large substation in Friston.

SCC councillor Richard Smith, vice-chairman of the Sizewell C Joint Local Authorities Group (JLAG), said: “This is a very special part of Suffolk and to compromise that in the way they are planning, with a 10-12 year construction, is filling many local people with grave concern, if not horror.

“We need to do everything we can to mitigate some of that and yet we have not had enough detail.”

JLAG’s response highlights more than a dozen key concerns, including:

• Transport plans

• Impact on the AONB

• Ecological effect on RSPB Mnsmere

• Increase from 6,100-8,500 workers and the impact on housing markets

• How to deliver employment opportunities for local people

• Mitigating adverse socio-economic impacts

• How to create a legacy of benefits

JLAG chairman and SCDC councillor Geoff Holdcroft said transport was the “big one”.

“Our clear preference from day one was that we wanted to see the majority of material come to the site by sea,” he added. “So we are really disappointed they’ve ruled out the marine-led strategy and we want to see all the evidence why.”

Mr Smith said highways officers had been given “nowhere near the information they require” to test EDF’s road transport plans.

The single track bridge near Wickham Market that EDF is proposing to improve as part of its park and ride plans Picture: GOOGLE
The single track bridge near Wickham Market that EDF is proposing to improve as part of its park and ride plans Picture: GOOGLE

The councils raised particular concerns over EDF’s park and ride proposals for Wickham Market, which included possible improvements to a stretch of rural roads, including the single track Glevering bridge. Mr Holdcroft labelled the suggestion “absolutely bonkers”.

While the councillors stressed they had no power to force EDF to provide the information, they called on the energy firm to work with them to find ways to “avoid, mitigate or compensate” for the problems so that the “advantages outweigh the disadvantages”.

Having already requested more information, when responding to stage two of the consultation in January 2017, the councillors said there was “still much work to be done”.

Mr Smith said the communities he represented felt there needed to be a further stage of consultation, due to the lack of information proposed so far, though he admitted the councils had no power to insist EDF did that.

Although the final decision on whether the power station goes ahead will be made by the Planning Inspectorate, the councillors claimed their influence still carried weight.

Mr Holdcroft suggested EDF would be “foolish” to apply for permission without greater support from the councils.

An EDF spokesman noted the councils’ response and said the company was pleased they continued to support Sizewell C in principle.

“As recognised in the local authorities East Suffolk Business Plan, Sizewell C provides a huge opportunity for growing the East Suffolk economy,” the spokesman added.

“At the peak of the construction, some 5,600 people will be employed at the site, with 900 people employed when the station is operating. The high skilled, well paid jobs offered by Sizewell will provide a boost in skills, education and the local economy for years to come.

“We will continue to work with the local authorities and a wide range of partners to maximise the economic benefit Sizewell C offers the region.”

EDF Energy’s stage three consultation closes on Friday, March 29 2019. Visit its website to take part.

Maggi Hambling loans picture to local campaign group Together Against Sizewell C Exposition and quotes “I am passionately against the building of Sizewell C and very happy to support the cause”

Download a poster here

TASC are thrilled to be hosting an Exposition of local Art, Photographs and information on the proposed building of Sizewell C and are grateful to Claire Fried of Artspace, Thoroughfare, Woodbridge for generously allowing this to happen.

With an eclectic collection of local art and photographs depicting this special area of Suffolk under threat, a mini installation on “Air” by Fran Crowe and Saturday 16th Feb, Pete Wilkinson, co-founder of Greenpeace UK will be on hand from 2-4pm to answer your questions on Sizewell C and EDFE 3rd Consultation. Please come along with your concerns or just to take a look at the Expo.

The Exposition runs from 14th - 20th February from 10 – 4pm.

TOGETHER AGAINST SIZEWELL C CLAIM EDF IS “JUMPING THE GUN”: PREPARATORY WORK WILL THREATEN AONB

A complete copy of TASC’s response can be found here

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has criticized EDF’s plans to free more space on the site for the planned “B and C” development by moving some Sizewell B buildings and car park to other areas which would further impinge on the Suffolk Coast And Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

TASC’s Secretary, Joan Girling, said “it would appear that EDFE believe that by owning so much land in the Leiston-cum-Sizewell area that they can spread buildings, cars, lorries and anything they wish anywhere and everywhere in their land ownership to suit themselves. This does not constitute being a good neighbour and this consultation has proved that they are prepared to sacrifice precious amenities which are dear to the local community to achieve their goals.

It is quite obvious that without the relocation of the SZB buildings, the site allocated for Sizewell C (SZC) is not of adequate size. Until such time as EDFE have Planning Consent from the Secretary of State for SZC, any relocation of buildings further west of the existing complex of SZA and B is premature. If SZC does not receive Planning Consent, further areas of Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB will have been sacrificed and Coronation Wood destroyed unnecessarily. TASC’s view is therefore that any application for relocation should not be considered by the Local Planning Authority but should form part of the application for a Development Consent Order for SZC and considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

TASC also take exception to EDFE’ comments that Coronation Wood is in a poor state, and of little value, yet the wood is an historic asset having been planted to commemorate George 5th Coronation and as such EDFE, the owners of the wood, should have applied a much better woodland management scheme to ensure its viability. The wood does not just contain pine but many hardwood deciduous trees. It also forms a green buffer to the Sizewell complex. TASC believes that the wood could be restored thereby ensuring its ability to carry out its function of obscuring the Sizewell industrial complex. Leiston-cum-Sizewell Town Council are opposed to the loss of Coronation Wood, it is just one of the woods which is named on the Oglivie Estate, forming part of Leiston’s heritage. It is incumbent on the owners, EDFE, to respect and manage it for the benefit of future generations.

TASC believes that the Outage Car Park planned to be built on Pill Box Field, resulting in road traffic to and from the car park adjacent to the public Bridleway 19 will put horses, riders and persons on foot at an unacceptable risk. This site is again in open countryside and directly viewed from many sides. TASC also questions the assumption that this disruption is purely to accommodate the outage for SZB once every 18 months. If SZC goes ahead with its two reactors this car park could be for the use of SZB and C outages once every 6months.

TASC urges everyone concerned about this proposal to send their responses, whether by email or letter, to EDFE by 1st February-see www.rlfsizewellb.co.uk


Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has written to every Member of Parliament to demand that plans to site two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell are cancelled.

tascstage3consultation

Following news that similar plans for new nuclear reactors at Moorside in Cumbria, Wylfa in Wales and Oldbury in Gloucestershire are now unlikely to go ahead, TASC supports the recent calls for a halt to the current programme of new nuclear build and for a root and branch review of the energy policy involving the public and stakeholders.

TASC Chairperson, Pete Wilkinson, said today, ‘The ill-advised energy policy the government has been supporting ever since Blair announced it in 2005 has become a yoke around its neck. In the last decade, government has been faced yet again with the uncomfortable truth that nuclear is expensive, dangerous, technically complicated and a very bad choice if the objective is to meet cost, climate change and electricity demand targets. Investors are increasingly nervous about funding what is essentially a redundant technology. Nuclear generates huge amounts of radioactive waste, of which some remains lethal to living organisms for centuries and for which there is no acceptable management solution. Electricity demand is falling and the cost of renewables is becoming more and more competitive as their efficiency increases. People are realizing the scale of disruption to their environment and their way of life for new nuclear stations, which are little more than white elephants that are likely to be, by the time they are constructed, surplus to requirements. It is time to recognize, as Margaret Thatcher was forced to do in the 80s, that nuclear is not an investable option.’

TASC calls on all MPs to put as much effort and encouragement behind energy decentralization, efficiency and conservation as it has given to the nuclear industry for decades. It further calls on the trades unions to end its fixation for nuclear and look at the tens of thousands of long-term jobs that a renewables-driven energy sector will provide.

Chris Wilson, TASC Press Officer added, ‘We recognize there would be some jobs for east Suffolk residents resulting from Sizewell C but to create them by destroying the environment, by devastating an area of outstanding natural beauty(AONB), changing the way of life for thousands and forcing people from their homes is not the way to do it. We also need to recognize the jobs EDF claim to be available for Sizewell are overwhelmingly short-term positions of little more than a year. So over a 12 year build they represent far lower equivalent numbers of full-time jobs. EDF want to move thousands of their workforce from the Hinkley C project so there will be very few jobs available to locals. As has been evidenced at Hinkley, the transfer of skilled workers, from local employers to EDF have had a negative impact on those local businesses. East Suffolk will suffer the boom and bust consequences of thousands of outside workers so TASC feel it is far more important to protect the current sustainable jobs in our buoyant tourist industry, and, perhaps, look at encouraging new technology businesses into the area. This would leave our precious coastal assets such as Minsmere and Sizewell Belts intact for the enjoyment of present and future generations.’

Here is a copy of the letter that has been sent to all M.Ps:

Dear Member of Parliament,

We are hoping to enlist your support to protect Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Sizewell Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) from the environmental destruction which will be caused by EDF’s plans to build two new EPR nuclear reactors within the AONB and on the SSSI.

In their 2018 Living Planet Report the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) warns that there has been, on average, a 60% loss in vertebrate species monitored in the last 34 years. This underlines the need to protect our designated landscape and wildlife areas.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018

The UK government has promised that, after Brexit, environmental protection will be greater than currently in place. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, stated in 2018 that the environment will be in a healthier condition 25 years hence. It is hard to see how allowing major construction in an AONB, renowned for the quality of its wildlife, and destroying a SSSI meets these goals. Of the places put forward by the government as being potential sites for a new nuclear power station, Sizewell is the only one in an AONB so surely it should be excluded from consideration at this stage in any event. This is particularly relevant given the recent recommendation by the National Infrastructure Commission that the UK should only consider one further nuclear power station, at most, after Hinkley Point C (HPC).

We are very concerned about the impact there will be on the marine environment and the local fishing industry as a result of the proposed construction. EDF say that Sizewell C will replicate HPC in Somerset. There, it has been reported that the sea water cooling system for the existing Hinkley B nuclear power station kills 750,000kg of fish per year and that HPC will quadruple the water intake. Smaller marine organisms will also be killed by being drawn into the cooling system. This level of destruction will be replicated at Sizewell and will severely impact the marine environment.

https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/concern-over-hinkley-point-c/

The Met Office UK Climate Projections 2018 Report says that as a result of climate change the whole of the UK, especially East Anglia, will suffer considerable sea level rise and storm surges causing serious flooding and a realignment of the coast. It also states that warmer temperatures will create hotter summer drought conditions, which is particularly relevant to Suffolk, especially its many farmers, as it already suffers from low rainfall and water shortages. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/ukcp18-launch-pr

It has been calculated that the Sizewell B & C nuclear power stations will consume 20% of the potable water available in the East Suffolk catchment area. This level of consumption is not considered compatible with the water demands of households, farmers and internationally recognised wetland wildlife habitats in one of the driest parts of the country.

https://theecologist.org/2017/jan/23/sizewell-c-consultation-edf-forgets-mention-600000-m3-year-mains-water

The French environment minister, Francois de Rugy was reported by Reuters in November 2018 as having stated, in respect of EDF’s EPR nuclear reactor design, “….the technological reliability, safety and competitiveness of EPR’s has not been proven”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclearpower/france-to-cut-nuclear-energy-reliance-by-2035-minister-idUKKCN1NN0O4

A recent study by the French environment agency, Ademe, has said that there is no economic case for new nuclear. It is time the UK government recognised this to be true.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/reuters-america-building-new-nuclear-plants-in-france-uneconomical-environment-agency.html

New nuclear power stations have not been able to attract commercial investors due to understandable doubts about their commercial viability and concerns about their future relevance, so the government are in the throes of adapting a scheme called the regulated asset base (RAB) which will pass on the financial risks to the taxpayers and/or electricity consumers here in the UK

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/08/06/new-nuclear-plants-funding-regulated-asset-base/

The Americans used a similar scheme as RAB, the Advance Cost Recovery scheme, to finance large infrastructure projects, including new nuclear power stations, resulting in billions of costs to consumers but not one kilowatt of electricity produced-reported at (with sound recording of presentation available):

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-02-08/advance-cost-recovery-swindled-south/

A typical example is the V C Summer project in South Carolina which was abandoned in 2017, years before completion but after incurring $9bn in costs, nearly $2bn of which had already been charged in advance to their customers.

A blank cheque is offered by Government to civil nuclear power despite its absurdly high costs, lack of public support and intractable waste problems. The only rational explanation for this seems to be the close link to the UK’s military nuclear ambitions. The military link has not been widely or freely acknowledged to the public or within parliament, therefore kept outside the democratic process. The military link is highlighted on page 10 of a government report at:

https://www.nssguk.com/media/1472/nssg-strategic-plan-update-2018.pdf and is addressed in this article at:

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2018-13-swps-stirling-and-johnstone.pdf&site=25

There are an increasing number of studies identifying a link between low-level radiation, such as that emitted by nuclear power stations, and poor health, particularly in women, babies, infants and embryos. Recent articles include:

https://beyondnuclearinternational.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/radiation-and-harm-to-human-health_27-july.pdf

and pages 8-12 of

https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010007/EN010007-002268-Zencity%20-%20written%20rep.pdf

Nuclear power stations produce a toxic legacy in the form of radioactive waste some of which will remain lethal for over 100,000 years. Even though we have produced nuclear waste for sixty years, there is still no proven safe way, anywhere in the world, of dealing with this waste for its entire life. The new high-burn nuclear power stations proposed for the UK, including Hinkley C, will create waste that is far more radioactive and therefore a much greater amount of waste in radiological terms. This will add to the environmental and financial burden for future generations.

If approved, in 2021 EDF plan to commence construction of Sizewell C’s two EPR reactors in Suffolk’s AONB, encroaching on the Sizewell Marshes SSSI, bordering a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site, RSPB Minsmere, taking 10/12 years to complete with 24/7 light, noise and air pollution. For EDF’s 2nd consultation, the RSPB set out their concerns in the following response

https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/campaigning-for-nature/case-studies/rspb-response-to-sizewell-c-stage-2-consultation.pdf

Additional new roads, rail improvements, beach landing facilities for Sizewell C will disrupt and degrade local environmental quality while the mining, milling and processing of uranium all create massive amounts of upfront greenhouse gases adding to the carbon footprint from the huge quantities of concrete and steel used in construction. The back end of the nuclear cycle itself is entirely unknown in terms of its carbon footprint, given the unknowns about the location, depth, conditioning and transport needs of the repository to contain the waste. The term “low carbon” applied to nuclear power is misplaced given the carbon-heavy elements in its life cycle. This matter is considered in the following article:

http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com/2018/12/nuclears-carbon-contribution-bution-is.html

In October 2018 the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report for the COP24 conference and it states we only have 12 years to combat climate change so the huge upfront carbon footprint from Sizewell C will hinder, not help, our climate change goals. The high-burn nuclear waste from Sizewell C will be stored on site on the eroding, flood-prone coast, and therefore a danger, for up to 160 years.

New nuclear was proposed by government in 2006 due to their perceived urgent need at that time “to keep the lights on”. Despite there being zero electricity produced by new nuclear in the last 12 years and none likely to be produced in the next seven years, if ever, the lights haven’t gone out nor are they expected to. Along with others, TASC has already demonstrated to government (Dept. for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy-“BEIS”) that the UK’s climate change, electricity demand and cost constraint targets can be met without nuclear power. Renewables are safer, cheaper and quicker to deploy and create more sustainable employment opportunities.

The Suffolk coastal area is hosting the infrastructure necessary to bring electricity interconnectors and offshore windfarms to the UK. Sizewell C will add to the burden on the local environment, famed for its landscape and biodiversity, and will devastate the Suffolk Coast AONB and with it the lucrative tourist industry. It is the wrong technology in the wrong place at the wrong time and needs to be stopped.

MPs have never been presented with an energy policy which does not include a nuclear component and therefore have been denied the opportunity to examine the benefits of non-nuclear energy options. New nuclear plants are not an imperative for the UK:                 they neither increase energy security nor reduce climate change gases across their life cycle. In fact, the greater availability of nuclear material they create increases the insecurity the UK faces today in this world of terrorism and division.  

Please help stop Sizewell C being built by calling for an emergency debate questioning the inclusion of new nuclear power stations in future UK energy policy and call for the Secretary of State for BEIS to be brought before the energy select committee to justify new nuclear being included in the future energy mix.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Wilkinson, Chairman, Together Against Sizewell C