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

 Q14. Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions about the consultation process.

Your response:

It is a sham. This 'consultation' offers no real chance for people to create a new possibility for power production in the area. The people of Leiston could all be employed making solar panels, tidal barriers or wind turbines. See the wonderful work being done in Hull www.siemens.co.uk/careers/en/hull-jobs.php

This consultation presupposes that the construction of nuclear power plants is something useful or necessary or responsible in itself. It is not. Go and visit Fukushima or Chernobyl if you are at all in doubt. This consultation is too long and unwieldy and does not offer the chance for people to reject the whole idea. Nuclear power is irresponsible for future generations. It makes very, very, very expensive electricity - you would probably make more power by actually burning money in your power station. Stop this madness and give proper employment that will sustain the people of Leiston for many generations to come - not irradiate them.

R. Pyke

Download a copy here

 

We would like to make the following points

1) Consultation

  1. ) We believe the 2nd Consultation time was inadequate.
  2. ) The information in the documents is also inadequate, in many areas it states there will be further information gathering. We cannot make a response on assumptions.
  3. ) Many of the maps in the documents do not have a legend.
  4. ) There are no contour lines on the maps so heights are difficult to calculate.
  5. ) A great deal of environmental information is missing, again we cannot make a response when all facts are not known.

Download a pdf here

Introduction
I would like to state at the outset that I am totally opposed to the building of Sizewell C. I understand that the narrow scope of the consultation does not allow for objection to the whole scheme due to the “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” (IROPI) directive.
I have taken part in both stages of the consultation thus far however I fully expect the objections I and other consultees have to Sizewell C to be totally ignored because the consultation is largely a P.R. exercise. My purpose in responding to the consultation is to put on record my objections to this foolhardy and unnecessary development. It would have been prudent for the assessment of the the potential sites for the power stations to be based on the geographical aspects of the area. Had that been the case, Sizewell would not have been selected. It is clear that the only reason the power station is being sited here is because putting a nuclear power station on a site that does not have one already would provoke too much opposition and therefore take too long to build. The National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) says as much quite clearly. The Strategic Siting Assessment focused primarily on sites which could come on stream by 2025 in order hit the Government’s obligations on CO2 reduction. They were more interested in choosing sites that could be pushed through quickly rather than sites which were suitable. Given that the 2025 deadline for new build is impossible to achieve anyway and these targets will be missed, the basic premise of the site assessment should be revisited.

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I write with much concern about the plans to construct two enormous Nuclear Power Stations in our neighbourhood

  1. It is dangerous and irresponsible to create a toxic mix that as yet there is no solution to dealing with it. How do I explain this to my grandchildren.

  2. it is clear that the coast in our area of Suffolk is eroding faster than anticipated. It erodes more in some areas than others but if you were to walk at Cove Hithe or Thorpeness both only a few kilometers either side of the Sizewell plant you would see how the erosion defies the statistics we have been presented with.

  3. The impact on nature will be disastrous. The precious SSSI land, the Sanderlings and the edges of the reedbeds will all suffer from from the construction work, noise and disruption. So many of us moved to this area of Suffolk because of its natural beauty and stillness.

  4. Constructing campus accommodation for single workers ( over 2000!)will not provide any helpful social infrastucture for Leiston or local towns. Nor will it help future housing. People of Leiston remember the drunken Friday nights after payday . And now the police station is not open and local medical aid less available. I used to live in Eastbridge and work in Leiston and was well aware of this social problem.

I could continue with concerns but I am sure that you will consider these points in detail before deciding to forge ahead with such an unacceptable plan just because it has cost so much already.

Yours truly

Mrs M. Horwood.