Representation by Rachel Smith-Lyte
- Date submitted
- 28 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
• It is unthinkable that 3,400 kg of fish will be interred in the cooling system (in addition to those already caught at B build of course) which will result in spreading many dead and dying fish over a wide area of the sea. From an ethical, residing fishermen and tourist point of view this is a nightmare. • Regarding the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB, DEFRA saw fit to extend it by 9.5% in July this year 2020, after 25 years of campaigning, indicating how highly the Government values these national landscapes. So a new twin nuclear reactor swallowing up much of the AONB surely flies in the face of this!? • The impact of any additional build at Sizewell must be properly weighted, in particular due to the site sitting within the National Landscape of a protected area; the AONB and also SSSI. • Jobs at any cost cannot be justified for something so destructive and locals are being allowed to believe those jobs will be for locals in semi and possibly even unskilled labour which just isn’t true. These new style EPR reactors demand very specific skills that are in international nevermind national shortage and in fact its true to say many of the jobs will come from the workforce already in place at Hinkley Point in Somerset who would parachute into Sizewell C. • The 7000 odd workers ‘temporary’ accommodation demands too high a carbon footprint all by itself. • Its not an exaggeration to ask that in the future, when the sea temperature is 26 degrees and the air temperature 40 degrees (which will of course bring more storms) how can the fuel rods be kept cool? • Unacceptable road traffic increase and associated congestion and poor air quality as a result of workers and HGV traffic to and from the site. This will affect my town of Woodbridge not least as cars try to avoid the lorries and the A12 and adverse effects on the residents of Wickham Market of a lorry and other traffic park north of the village (or north of Melton). • Would not help us meet UK CO2 reduction targets - 10 times as carbon intensive as wind power, because of the build (source: Energising the East, Dr Karen Barrass, Dr Andrew Boswell, Jonathan Essex 2020) • On a particularly vulnerable and shifting coastline with sea level rise - this does not make it the most appropriate site for further development. • Unresolved dangerous nuclear waste and disposal issue • Life and environment-changing build irrevocably destroying irreplaceable wildlife and habitats including RSPB Minsmere and AONB generally. Also tourism, air quality and quality of life for local residents. Wildlife and habitats also proven essential to human mental and physical health. • Alternative sources of truly renewable power generation such as wind, solar and tidal must be prioritised. • Battery storage is improving all the time and costs are down 85%. • As Suffolk Preservation Society pointed out, think Chernobyl and Japan’s Fukushima plant disasters in 1986 and 2011 respectively - it could happen here.