We believe that Central Government has failed to consult fully on a key EU Directive 2014/87 which is the responsibility of ONR.
We will continue to ask questions about this important Regulation.

The “Working with Communities” consultation concerning Geological Disposal Facilities which may be built to contain spent fuel is described as flawed by many NGOs. It is felt that a GDF should be for legacy waste and should not include waste from new facilities. The concern is that we do not know what experience there is of the management and storage of High Burn up Fuel, which may be used at SZC. The reason for the use of High burn up fuel is to ensure maximum profit for the operator.

We have discovered that there is a short fall of at least £10 billion pounds in the nuclear liabilities fund, which is meant to cover the decommissioning of the EDF fleet of nuclear power plants.

BEIS is studying the responses to the Consultation on EN6, they have said that Nuclear must compete on finance and with evolving technology.

Which must mean that there is not much wriggle room for HPC and SZC. This is the situation which has lead to Horizon (Hitachi for the Wylfa plant) seeking a funding package from Central Government. This has been widely reported in many newpapers in particular the Times. Likewise EDF have also been seeking a solution to their financial problems. TASC believes the developers should have to prove to the Government and the regulators that they are financially sound and can deliver their plans without Government funding. If any Nuclear site fails to deliver or becomes a liability it should not be the public purse that has to fund any rescue package. Hopefully Central Government has learned the lesson of Carillion.

Hinkley Point C is proving to be a moving target. They achieved their Planning Consent via PINs, DECC and the then Secretary of State. We have now discovered that there is an application for increasing the size of 4 buildings, redesigning 12 buildings and structures and changing the location of 3buildings and realigning the sea wall. These have all been approved.
However another proposed change/addition to the wet storage is for a Dry Storage facility (which may be comparable to the SZB store ) this has not been approved.
This means that a Dry Fuel Store was not applied for at the initial planning stage. It is a question TASC has asked several times for the SZC site.The site is much smaller than Hinkley and more restricted with different geology. We have grave concern about any creeping development in what is a very sensitive habitat. We will continue to watch this situation closely.

TASC continues with its objections to new nuclear facilities at Sizewell and find the lack of information on so many subjects very frustrating. These include, transport Planning, mitigation for loss of designated habitat, how the Marine Landing Facility traffic is going to transverse the sensitive dunes and Heritage Coast Footpath. How any work to the seabed on the marine landing facility and the cooling water pipe work will effect coastal erosion. How much land will the extraneous works outside the Nuclear Licensed site require.
Lastly will the scar that the Works Access Road will make on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB ever fit in with the AONB designation?

Joan Girling.