Meeting Report. Date: 22 April 2015

Transcription

1 Meeting Report Regarding: EDF Energy Hinkley Point C: Main Site Forum Stogursey Victory Hall Date: 22 April 2015 Attending: Jim Claydon Chair Carole Balston Valerie Boxall Peter Farmery Lesley Flash Chris Ford Sue Goss Susan Jones Aubrey Knowles Mike Laver Allan Searle Sue Spicer Anne Wellings Derek Wellings Kezia White Andrew Goodchild West Somerset Council Rebecca Miller Sedgemoor District Council Lidia Bosa EDF Energy Kenneth Allan EDF Energy David Eccles EDF Energy Rob Evans EDF Energy Chris Hemmingsley EDF Energy Rick Sheehan EDF Energy Huw Owen PPS Mark Price PPS Apologies: none Item 1. Welcome and Introductions Jim Claydon (JC) welcomed attendees and asked attendees to introduce themselves. 2. Matters Arising Attendees confirmed they were happy to sign off the minutes from the previous meeting (28 January 2015). Under item 4: Chris Hemmingsley (CH) informed the meeting that the area south of (the site boundary fence) is DCO constrained and forms part of the southern area landscape works. EDF Energy is currently not seeking to do any works in this area until transition to the DCO, with the possible exception of some archaeological work. LF asked about the planting to improve the visual impact of mounded materials and CH responded that the top soil bunds will be seeded with a grass mix as per the management plans. CH further confirmed that the large areas of woodland provided in the southern area, under the DCO, would be semi-natural and it is therefore not considered appropriate to plant fruit tree cultivars in this area. However, in response to suggestions at a previous meeting, EDF Energy has already added a range of tree species to the hedgerows, which will provide fruit along with trees which provide nectar & pollen for bees. Apple trees are already well represented, including a dessert apple Pomeroy of Somerset. Sue Goss (SG) asked for an update on the re-siting of footpaths and CH confirmed that discussions are ongoing. SG also raised the issue of flooding on Benhole Lane.

2 Under Item 5: Chris Ford (CF) asked if the clarification on access to the foreshore during construction could be made public again to address any confusion. DE explained that there are existing monitoring sites to the south of the site that are the formal monitoring points where the noise levels must not exceed the prescribed limits. Under item 7: It was confirmed that the litter along the roadside had been cleared, although Pater Farmery (PF) said he had seen little evidence of this. DE pointed out that not all littering could be blamed on EDF Energy traffic, but said they would continue to make efforts to ensure EDF Energy buses and lorries were not the source of litter. 3. Project Update DE provided an update on negotiations with Government, saying they continued to make good progress towards the Final Investment Decision (FID), but now that the period of purdah leading up to the General Election had been entered, proceedings had understandably slowed and there could be a further delay because of the need to brief incoming ministers after the General Election. DE said that the discussions with equity partners and investors were also still progressing well. However, as the major preparatory activities on site neared completion, the next phase of work would require a substantial increase in spending levels, and these would only begin once the FID had been achieved. DE went on to explain that ongoing projects will be completed as will community engagement - but work on the DCO phase will not start until after the FID, and no new major projects will be commenced. He reassured the meeting that work to ensure the project s maintenance and readiness will continue. Sue Goss (SG) highlighted the issues experienced by Areva and the EPR reactor pressure vessel under construction at Flamanville. DE said the French nuclear regulator, the ASN, was raising questions and that Hinkley will benefit from lessons learned from Flamanville, adding that the pressure vessel for Hinkley Point C had not yet been forged. Chris Ford (CF) said he felt the announced delays were beginning to cause a loss of support from local people and the supply chain, while Mike Laver (ML) and LF echoed these concerns. Susan Jones (SuJ) questioned whether there was the potential for the project to be put back for a number or years or even abandoned, but DE reassured the meeting that everyone was working to ensure the project progressed as planned. DE added that EDF Energy was committed to keeping the community informed of developments. LF asked whether, in light of potential delays, EDF Energy would be likely to seek amendments to the DCO with regard to noise, light and traffic in an effort to catch-up on any FID-related construction delays, potentially causing additional hardships for the community. DE responded that EDF Energy must adhere to the conditions of the DCO. JC and Andrew Goodchild (AG) confirmed that in the event that changes were required, there would need to be a process of engagement with all the relevant consultees, including PINS, the local authorities and local residents. 4. Brief Summary of Workshop Discussions

3 JC suggested that the content of the two workshop topics would more logically be presented in reverse order and asked if there was any objection. Lesley Flash (LF) raised an objection and after a brief discussion, Allan Searle (AS) suggested a vote be taken and it was agreed 9 votes to 2 to change the order. Workshop 1: Update on the North & South Plazas Rob Evans (RE) and Rick Sheehan (RS) provided a presentation on plans for the north and south plazas: Provided an update on the transport measures, detailing the Park & Ride facilities, local bus services, and freight facilities North Plaza is essentially a bus station designed for the drop-off and pick-up of workers. 85% of the workforce will be arriving onsite by bus, hence the need for the North Plaza South Plaza is for HGV traffic and materials Workshop 2: Update on accommodation on site Ken Allan (KA) provided a presentation on the accommodation campus and the build sequence. The onsite campus will provide accommodation comprising 510 bedrooms for critical position workers, located in 15 blocks of 3-storey buildings The onsite campus will have its own amenities building and facilities The campus will include parking for 353 cars The facility will also feature two 5-a-side football pitches which will also be available for community use Workers staying at the campus would be bound by the strict behavioural code and good neighbours policy The project will take a year to complete JC summarised comments as: Litter (covered elsewhere in this MSF) Driver education and especially the convoying of lorries Coordination between Hinkley A and B sites and monitoring of traffic movements Behaviour of workers based in onsite accommodation Monitoring and control of access journeys to site by service workforce Monitoring and control of car use by workers using the onsite accommodation Community use of 5-a-side pitches and facilities at the accommodation campus 5. Planning Issues Update CH updated the meeting on three main topics: site dewatering, the southern area and noise complaints and monitoring. Dewatering: CH confirmed that dewatering would not now not take place this year, due to the reduced scope of works on site. Southern Boundary:

4 Archaeology Planning consent granted by WSC to commence set piece excavations 6 & 7 in the southern landscape area. Funding is yet to be confirmed for this work. Public notice of the works will be issued 2 weeks in advance of the start date along with an invitation and details of regular drop-in sessions on site. SG added that either the Babbling Brook pub or onsite were her preferred options for drop-in sessions. CH replied that onsite is the preferred option and that there are ongoing discussions with the site manager. JC asked if the drop-in sessions would be open to school parties and DE replied that local residents were the priority. LF asked if the southern bund could be completed in time for the seeding season. DE replied that the archaeology could possibly be done this side of the financial investment decision. LF responded that the seeding and planting is due in the autumn and asked that EDF Energy provide details of when this would happen. CH confirmed that there are four Development Consent Order (DCO) requirements relevant to the southern landscape area (P10 Water Management Zone, MS22, MS23 and MS26 regarding the Bum Brook bridge, emergency access road and landscape design). Work continues to develop these, but formal submission timing will be dependent on activities during the care and maintenance period. It is intended to commence consultation with the Environment Agency regarding the Bridge Flood Risk Assessment and the Water Management Zone in preparation for works re-start under the DCO. Noise Complaints/Noise Monitoring Plan: CH explained that the Noise & Vibration Management Plan (NVMP) states that site construction plant will have white noise reversing alarms. It was confirmed that this applies to vehicles in regular use on site, must be where practicable and does not include road vehicles making deliveries including: service vans (although contractors making regular deliveries with the same vehicles have fitted white noise reversing alarms e.g. Hansons) one-off use of plant (e.g. a crane bought in for one day only) bleepers used for other (non-reversing) safety critical purposes such as on platform and crane lifting alarms/ booms. CH confirmed that site plant now undergoes a pre-use check on arrival at HPC, which includes ensuring white noise reversing alarms are fitted. Other site noises that can be misheard as reversing alarms include machine horns, most commonly used on the large earth moving plant (mainly in the north of the site) for safety purposes to indicate safe passage/arrival of the dumper truck in the arc of the excavator. This is an industry standard and removes the need for a banks-man, which would be unsafe in these scenarios. On the subject of managing noise complaints, CH explained that members of the public can raise concerns with WSC or EDF Energy. Breaches will also be logged live by the four noise monitoring stations. EDF Energy also has two further monitors inside the boundary to assist calculation of where noise is emanating from. CH explained that EDF Energy does not just wait for complaints to come in from external parties, as the Site Environmental team does regular inspections of the site and the noise data and contractors raise internal learning reports should issues be identified. Plant not adhering to the white noise requirements is parked until the correct sounders are fitted. SG raised a question on the location and efficiency of noise monitoring on the western boundary. CH acknowledged that there have been some issues with the noise monitors losing GSM signal and the live feed to WSC and EDF Energy. The data is however, still recorded and can be gathered manually. This was because of an issue with the Mobile Network phone mast and EDF Energy is investigating a number of options to maintain a more

5 robust live data feed. It has been requested by WSC, local residents and the local councillor that the monitoring station at Knighton Farm be relocated, as it is considered by these parties that the station is shielded by the farm buildings and does not provide reliable data. EDF Energy has agreed to look at the potential of moving this station, but CH confirmed that no actual move was likely until DCO/ FID. SG suggested a location (details to be supplied to CH) which CH agreed to add to a list of potential alternatives. It was also confirmed that there is no specific requirement for a noise monitor for the Jetty construction as the noise limits were measured from the façade of residential properties and thus recordings would be taken at the four existing monitoring stations. EDF Energy has other internal monitors for calibration purposes, and the jetty team may consider these, but this is yet to be confirmed. 6. Subjects for Next Workshop It was decided to focus on one workshop topic: Care and maintenance 7. AOB Sue Spicer (SS) asked if soil excavated was being kept on site and the depth of excavations. DE answered that the soil would be reused onsite and that the deepest excavation would be 36 metres in depth. Susan Jones (SJ) raised the issue of the horse crossing and the provision of lights and raised control button that could be operated by mounted riders. DE said he would report back to the next Transport Forum. Afternote: It is hoped that the horse crossing will be completed in Q Aubrey Knowles (AK) asked about a siren that sounded at 1.20pm on the day of the MSF (22 April) for a long time and wondered if it was a test. CH replied that it was a B Station siren and DE added that EDF Energy would investigate and report back in an after note. [AFTERNOTE: Siren testing by HPA and HPB is carried out routinely and the plan for siren testing is discussed with the Site Stakeholders Group. The planned dates for siren testing are communicated to local residents by HPA and HPB by letter.] Derek Wellings (DW) asked about the cycle track from Bridgwater to the site. DE replied that it will not be possible to progress this as quickly as hoped this side of the FID. CF asked whether, in light of agreement on a single workshop topic for the next MSF, if 1.5 hours was required for the next workshop. It was agreed to start the next Main Meeting 30 minutes earlier at 7:00pm. 8. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 15 July 2015 at Stogursey Victory Hall, commencing at 6:00pm (workshop) and 7:00pm for Main Meeting.