The 2nd EDF Consultation ran from 23/11/16 to 03/02/17.

Despite promises to the contrary, EDF chose to run the consultation over the christmas period just as they did with the 1st consultation 4 years ago. It is easy to be disheartened when ploughing through the 321 pages of the 2nd consultation document, and it is the view of some members of TASC that the document and the whole consultation was designed to sap the will and energy of people who want to engage with it. There is a lot of verbage and little detail in the document, and whilst we were invited to comment on trivial aspects of the plans there was no option given for us to reject it completely. TASC responded to the consultation and pointed out the issues that were omitted by EDF as we feel it is important to engage with the planning process and to highlight the paucity of information that was given to us by EDF

A link to the EDF 2nd consultation document is here

If people would like to send us their responses we will put them on the website in order to help others form their own responses.

EDFE Stage 2 Consultation for Sizewell C (end date of consultation Feb 3rd 2017)

Response to the Consultation from TASC

(formerly CANE Communities Against Nuclear expansion)

 A pdf of this document can be downloaded here

 

We must point out in the first instance that TASC is opposed to the construction of Sizewell C.

Some of the reasons we are opposed to the building of SZC are as follows:

a) The area to be used for the development of SZC is in an AONB designated for its landscape qualities.

b) SZC is to be situated on the Suffolk Heritage Coast. The area has many other environmental designations which have received little or no attention from EDFE.

c) It is suggested by EDFE that there is mitigation for the loss of part of the SSSI however we contest this statement. Aldhurst Farm Habitat Creation does not recompense for the loss of Sizewell Belts SSSI

d) The geographical site for SZC is in a very sensitive rural location on an eroding coast, with poor transport links, in an area which depends heavily on tourism for the best part of its economy. Many people visit the area because of the peace and tranquillity they find here.

e) We believe the development, with two reactors and their chimney stacks, is far too large. They will dominate, spilling over to the east and west and will be too high in the low-lying coastal scene, creating an unacceptably prominent industrial appearance.

f) The Access Road to service the development severs the AONB and the corridors for wildlife..

g) The lay-up area and the batching plant are again situated in the AONB in a very sensitive site.

h) We believe it will decimate the Tourist Trade which is of essential economic value to the area.

It will take many years to recover.

i) There is a serious risk of coastal erosion. If the site is protected from the sea there will be a knock on effect elsewhere on the coast.

j) We are concerned about the amount of potable water SZC will need in this dry area of East Anglia

download a pdf here

EDF Energy’s Sizewell C Stage 2 consultation.

The following response is on behalf of the 165 members and supporters of Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth.

1. What are your overall views on the proposals?

  • This is not a suitable place for another nuclear power station. The site is too small for such a massive development, the proposed land-take having increased substantially since the plans were first put forward under the National Policy Statement for Energy, EN-6. The original 110 ha has grown to 300 ha, mostly within Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and along our Heritage Coast. Even more land purchases/compulsory purchase orders are now proposed, together with the additional destruction of Coronation Wood. The amount going under concrete would be approximately twice the size of Leiston town. This is totally unacceptable.

Download a copy here

Sizewell C Proposed Nuclear Development Stage 2 Pre-Application Consultation

Consultation Document

Response from the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG)

(BANNG PAPER NO. 32)

 

Introduction – the nature of this response

The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), founded in 2008, is primarily concerned with proposals for new nuclear development at the Bradwell site in Essex. We also have an interest in generic and specific processes and proposals for new nuclear developments which may have implications or relevance for Bradwell. There are also issues encountered at Bradwell which, we believe, equally apply to other sites. In particular, there are some common concerns with both the Sizewell and Bradwell sites. They are neighbouring sites on the east coast and are the subject of proposals by the EDF/CGN partnership. Although they are at different stages of development and with different reactor technologies (Sizewell with two UK EPR reactors and Bradwell with an undisclosed number of Hualong 1 reactors) both are in areas with high levels of environmental protection, on coasts liable to erosion, coastal processes, storm surges and, in the long run, climate change and sea-level rise. These issues pose considerable threats to environments and human health especially in the long-term (that is, over 100 years). It is the unsuitability of the site for new nuclear power reactors and spent fuel and radioactive waste facilities that has led to our campaign to prevent new nuclear development at Bradwell which we have pursued in various ways, including detailed and informed consultation responses (see especially BANNG papers 1,2,4,9 in Appendix 1). For similar reasons we are opposed to the proposals for Sizewell ‘C’.

 

BANNG responded to the Initial Proposals and Options Consultation Documents that comprised the Stage 1 Pre-Application Consultation in 2013 (See BANNG Paper No. 18 starting on p. 7 of this document). The arguments we put then are equally relevant now and, if anything, are reinforced. Consequently, we wish to submit our previous paper as an integral part of BANNG’s response to the present consultation. In particular, we wish to reaffirm our position that ‘Sizewell C should not proceed unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that impacts can be minimised, precious environments restored or replaced and ecological disruption prevented’ (BANNG, 2013, p.9). We consider that no such demonstration has been achieved in the interim. Indeed, the risks posed to the environment and the vulnerability of the site to degradation and destruction in the far future are manifested in the consultation document despite its attempts at reassurance. And the measures indicated to prevent degradation and to protect the site appear far too fragile in the face of the overwhelming force of natural processes which are possible during the proposed lifetime of the facilities, which stretches far into the next century. In the absence of any coherent, convincing or capable strategy for prevention or mitigation of the severe impacts likely to occur, BANNG reaffirms its view that there are fundamental reasons sufficient to preclude development of the site for a new nuclear power station and, therefore, that either EDF withdraws its proposals or the Secretary of State intervenes to prevent the development.

In the 321 pages of the 2nd consultation document there is no mention at all about the use of mains water. When I asked a Sizewell “expert” during the stage 2 consultation roadshow, he was unaware that Sizewell C would require 1,600 m3 mains water per day, and thought that I was asking about water that would be used to make tea and flush the toilets. When I explained how much water would be required, he suggested that it was not EDF’s problem as they would just buy the water from the water company and let them work out where it is to come from.

That answer was incorrect:

Sizewell B currently uses around 800 cubic metres of mains water a day, which is 7% of of the total demand of the local catchment area.1 The twin-reactors of Sizewell C would require at least 1,600 cubic metres of fresh water per day in order to cool various parts of the plant including the primary and secondary circuits of the reactor, which means approximately 20% of the mains water would be taken by the power plant. The East Suffolk Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS) covers an area of 1364km2 and includes Felixstowe, Ipswich, Woodbridge, Wickham Market, Stowmarket, Saxmundham, Halesworth, Southwold and Kessingland.2

Households in suffolk are being asked to conserve water because it is recognised that this is one of the driest regions in the country and there is little scope for abstracting more water from local water sources.3