Representation by William Halford
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to raise the following issues of concerns regarding Sizewell C Project Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010012 1. National Security and safety of the local (East Suffolk) population • Greatly increased risk to national and local security through the concentration of power generation capacity and infrastructure into just 4 square miles between Sizewell, Thorpeness and Friston - a tempting target for terrorists and any hostile power. • A concentration of too many power generation facilities (SZB, SZC, SZD, Galloper, Greater Gabbard, EA1N, EA2, Nautilus, Eurolink etc etc) in just one place –a tempting target for terrorists and any hostile power. • The need to retain critically dangerous nuclear waste on site until the year 2135 is madness - a time bomb sitting close to future generations of East Suffolk's inhabitants and businesses. Climate change has accelerated far further than previously forecast and, together with the ongoing erosion of the East Suffolk coast, it must now be inevitable that sea levels at Sizewell will rise very significantly over the next 100 years and that an inundation of the site including the nuclear waste ponds will occur. 2. Site Selection • The proposed Site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding • Potential impact on coastal processes • Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance including RSPB Minsmere • Owing to rising sea levels, the site may become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors (A, B, C1, C2 and D) together with dangerous stored waste. 4. Community, Economic and social impacts • Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location, a new"town"* comprising accommodation blocks just outside Leiston at Eastbridge, tiny picturesque village of just 50 inhabitants, close to Minsmere. • EDF should reconsider and plan the bulk of accommodation at nearby towns e.g. Lowestoft and Ipswich • Negative impact on Visitor economy owing to construction noise, clogged up rural roads clogged up with construction. • Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. • Leaching of staff from local firms attracted by higher pay and prospects (The area currently enjoys virtually full employment, few unemployed workers are available in the local area. • Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. • The social impact on the local area of having so many construction workers (mostly young men) imposed on such a peaceful rural area will inevitably highly damaging, especially at evenings and weekends. No lessons seem to have been learned by EDF from the earlier CEGB Sizewell B project, during which crime, unsocial behaviour and drug dealing soared with local police unable to cope. • EDF should reconsider and work with local authorities to put together plans for accommodation at the nearby towns of Lowestoft and Ipswich - similar to its approach at HPC where the majority of accommodation was provided at the town of Bridgewater and where the plan provides the opportunity for a housing legacy once construction is complete. 5. Transport • I continue to prefer a Marine led strategy* until such time as EDF can provide an acceptable and comprehensive justification for it to have been be abandoned • A Road based transport plan is not sustainable in this small locality; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV volumes would be as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means the A12* and villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. NB It is estimated that 85% of HGV traffic will arrive from the south via the single lane A12. • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. • Contractor and worker rat-running, fly parking and disruption have not been adequately considered. • EDF previously calculated that the benefit of a rail led strategy relative to road led would be a reduction of 450 HGV's per day (39%) crossing East Suffolk's narrow rural roads. • EDF must engage Government at ministerial level (Transport and BEIS) to ensure Rail Track are obliged to support a Rail Led strategy for SZC • Road Improvements : I prefer the original D2 route* for a A12 to Sizewell Link Road to support a Marine and Rail led Integrated Transport Strategy - as was proposed for Sizewell B but not implemented. • Whichever link road is built must be suitable for retention as a legacy after construction is completed 6. Environment and Landscape • Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic • Insufficient information provided the supply and drainage of vast quantities of potable water during the construction period and beyond. • Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. • Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage • Low carbon energy generated when operational will not offset the CO2 emitted during construction for at least 6 years. • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB • Requires up to 190 million litres per 24 hour day of sea water for cooling when operational. When both SZB and SZC are running, combined throughput would be 217 million litres per day. 7. Marine and Coastal processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available • Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable • Potential cumulative effect of SZC and the several other offshore energy projects on the Coraline Crag near Thorpeness • Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes • Impacts on marine ecology 8. Cumulative impact • EDF's Environmental Impact Assessment must fully evaluate the combined impact of SZC, EA1N, EA2, Nautilus, EuroLink , Greater Gabbard extension, Galloper Extension et aliter.. The combined effect of so much construction, all during the same 10-15 years period and in just 4 square miles of rural will together destroy the environment and residents’ lives in an area of the Suffolk Heritage Coast between Sizewell, Thorpeness and Friston. • PINS NSIP Advice Note 17 on Sumulative Assessment is not able to support an uncoordinated programme of so many consecutive unconnected energy project proposals coming forward, all targeting the connections to the National Grid in the same local area. 9. Alternative power generation technologies • EDF EPR technology has yet to be proven . EDF continues to encounter serious engineering difficulties with this technology in elsewhere. • Advances in High Voltage battery storage technology and the prospect of much smaller nuclear power installations distributed close to where the power is used now may provide an opportunity for much lower risk and lower cost power generation situated close to where the majority of the power is to be consumed i.e. in SE England. 10. Project Funding • Hinckley Point C (HPC) project latest (September 2019) published forecast of a further £3,000,000,000 overspend provides evidence that EDF cost estimates have been grossly understated. It must now be impossible for sufficient funding to be found such that the retail price of the electricity eventually generated can be competitive with other forms of power generation. Even if consented, there is ahigh probability that it will be cancelled later. • The proposed Regulated Asset Base (RAB) financing model has not yet been accepted and it will be politically difficult to gain parliamentary and public approval with respect to the generation of nuclear power.