The Sizewell C Project

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

The Sizewell C Project

Received 23 September 2020
From Michael Taylor

Representation

Sizewell C Personal Relevant representation to PINS. Despite 4 consultations and this DCO application I believe EDF have not supplied adequate information and I wish to highlight certain issues. I believe that the carrying out and co-ordinating of all permissions and licences, alongside and feeding into the DCO process, in accord with PINS guidance Annex 11 is essential. The Wylfa planning case has had little or no input from Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and regardless of any planning decision from the SoS (due soon) the Wylfa site cannot be considered to be suitable for nuclear generation until a site licence is finalised by ONR. Missing criteria/lack of information. CO2 Impact:- Carbon Footprint studies exist for the SZB dry fuel store which can be used as a basis for considering the construction impact of SZC. Town Water:- raised this issue at all consultations. Critical aspect of IAEA siting criteria. It has been known since the 1993 application for SZC that there would be no further water abstraction permitted.[Redacted] Poor Landscape photomontages :- eg Aldeburgh to Thorpeness, RSPB Minsmere. Downplays long distant landscape impact. Wrong locations. No redline layout of the whole development site including OS gridlines and contours. Previously Layfield and the SoS planning consent for SZB had rejected a second access road and highlighted the green (later added blue) planning lines which are included in the Royal Haskoning/British Energy scoping opinion for SZC dated 2008. It is estimated that the proposed eastern limit of the SZC site could be over 100 metres beyond the blue line. The western boundary is on a marsh. Insufficient historic mapping, particularly post Sizewell A, post Sizewell B. Aids understanding of the build-up of land and underlying geology. Need for review of the ONR site licence and boundary for Sizewell B NPS. It is directly adjacent to Sizewell C site and the height of the station platform is also different leading to increased flood risk. Issues concerning EN6 NPS July 2011 Vol 2 ref. planning policy Deployability and Need. C.8.3, C.8.83, C.8.59. Any 2025 Deployment impossible. Need should be addressed by a new energy policy. Grid connection and grid stability. C.8.5, C.8.74, C.8.86. Impact on grid stability and future need for additional lines in Stour valley AONB, possible Electromagnetic Radiation issue at Aldringham Park. Landscape impact AONB. Inflexible one turbine/ one reactor design of the EPR, unlike two turbine SZB, one turbine switched off due to National Grid request. Major issue needs to be resolved by National Grid. Size and location. C.8.2, C.8.37, C.8.42, C8.61-65, C.8.68, C.8.70, C.8.73, C.8.74, C.8.75, C.8.76, C.8.78, C.8.82, C.8.85, C.8.89. Site too small and constrained in an AONB and designated sites. Major Landscape impact of reactors and pylons. Reactor centrelines not aligned with SZB. Demographics. C.8.7 ONR licencing process/Emergency planning. SZA used remote site criteria. Need to account for up to 30km Outer Emergency Planning zone, affecting emergency plan for Sizewell B particularly during construction of SZC. Flood risk and coastal erosion. EA and ONR, C.8.18-21, C.8.25, C.8.27, C.8.29, C.8.34, C.8.40, Flood zone 3, sea level rise, storminess, site lifetime of spent fuel store needs to be confirmed. Potential impact of jetty/AIL facility on coastal process. Cooling Water systems. EA. C.8.92 on. CEFAS Station 10 Sizewell public information on sea temperature trend out of date. Fish mortality. Fish deterrent system unresolved at HPC. C/W system impact on coastal erosion. Possible impact of dredging material needs study. HPC issues unresolved. Transport and Access. C.8.69. EDF have recently indicated they may wish to review the modes of transport. No motorway, 47kms to A14, risk to Orwell Bridge, potential delays at Felixstowe Port compounded by Brexit. Borrow pit use unclear. Rail noise, air quality, safety and capacity due to heavy freight trains 2000 tonnes. Use of sea dredged aggregates needs careful study. Minerals Authority planner SCC, has not allowed for SZC. Ecology. C.8.52, C.8.53, Impact on groundwater, connectivity, red data book species, purpose of AONB and designated sites. Cannot be mitigated. Spent fuel and disposability. C8.23, C8.24. No Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) site. Hi Burn fuel, Cask storage unproven lifetime. Security and location of proposed dry fuel store. No understanding of how to move off site to any GDF even for SZB casks. Health Impacts C8.106. Historic detectable increase in local health impacts from past operations particularly leukaemia and cancers. In view of the above I wish to strongly object to the plans for Sizewell C.