Today (7 September 2018) TASC met with Chief Executive Officer of EDFE Simone Rossi. It was a very open and productive meeting. We felt we were listened too very carefully, and many of our concerns were taken on board.

TASC asked questions about the UK Governments Policies on Energy,

It is all too obvious that much work is needed to convince the Government of this Country that we need Energy Policies which are fit for purpose, which are sustainable and take us into the next century. We should not be creating more nuclear waste when we do not know what to do with what we have already created. Using means to generate electricity which do not devastate many acres of our countryside and our way of life. 

It was clear that this lack of Policy including on shore wind is also a concern for EDFE

Incidentally TASC has pointed out to Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Dept and Greg Clark Secretary of State, that the Suite of Energy Policies EN  1 to 6 are not fit for purpose are out dated and have not taken on board the considerable fast moving renewable energy sector, and are holding back innovative businesses by not giving them the right incentives to  be able to move forward. We will be saying this to BEIS officers when we meet them in the next few weeks.

We did not major on the immediate local issues such as roads, accommodation blocks etc , we are aware that studies are being undertaken by EDFE  and what ever EDFE are considering  it will not  be revealed until the  Stage 3 Consultation.

If SZC gets its Development Consent Order at some point in the future  this area will be totally disrupted. No matter how hard EDFE try or how much we protest or what mitigation is implemented There will be major changes to the area and at Sizewell itself the sky line will be unrecognisable as will the view from RSPB Minsmere. Leiston and the surrounding area as far afield as 20 miles will feel the absolute impact.

Which is why TASC says NO SZC

We asked questions about the protection of SZB/C from the North Sea which will be exacerbated by sea level rise.

Large scale engineering works however  achieved would change the ambience of Sizewell Benthills and  would without doubt cause further problems north and south of the  power stations .

We stressed the sensitivity of Thorpeness where the cliffs are already being eroded away at an alarming rate.

This was acknowledged and it seemed almost as much a problem for them. No doubt an engineering solution could be found to protect their sites but not without destroying the Beach, Dunes and Heritage Coast Walk and whole swathes of the coastal strip. We also gave Mr Rossi a map of Flood Zone 3 which covers the whole of the north west and south sides of the Magnox A and EDFE B/ C  

There is only one answer to many of the problems as we have said before. No SZC  


However we felt we had a good hearing with no punches pulled.

Thanks to everyone who turned up to the talk by Jonathon Porritt at Aldeburgh last night (18 Oct 2016). He mainly talked about possible alternatives and why the UK government are so keep on nulear power. In his talk he mentioned a paper by the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the Univeristy of Sussex. The paper can be found here although a summary can be found on The Ecocolgist website.

For those who are interested in the possible alternative we have a meeting coming up soon on this - for more details see here.

This follows on from what Mark Whitby said at the talk on Friday, particularly about the Fuel in the ponds.

A fire from spent fuel stored at a U.S. nuclear power plant could have catastrophic consequences, according to new simulations of such an event. A major fire “could dwarf the horrific consequences of the Fukushima accident,” says Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. “We’re talking about trillion-dollar consequences,” says Frank von Hippel, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, who teamed with Princeton’s Michael Schoeppner on the modeling exercise. The revelations come on the heels of a report last week from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the aftermath of the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan. The report details how a spent fuel fire at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant that was crippled by the twin disasters could have released far more radioactivity into the environment.

Further detail can be found here:


At present we do not know what fuel will be used at Sizewell C/D however if it is high burn up or MOX, we have been told it would need to be kept in the pond for a longer period than that of SZB (which was a minimum of 5years).

There have been grave concerns since the Weightman report about the safety/security of ponds and the cooling water and it has been pointed out
by some that it is their Achilles heel. Mark Whitby made it quite clear that the loss of cooling water at Fukushimas 4th reactor which was in shut down at the time and therefore had all the reactor fuel within the pond meant it was in serious trouble after the eartquake and following tsunami. In Marks' words there could have been a disastrous fire, luckily a drone was able to confirm the low water level and water was immediately diverted to the site.
We also had a situation with A station when the pond there leaked and was only discovered by chance. We were given lots of reassurances, but their
alarm system did not work and only by chance was the potential disaster managed. It took a year and a half to prise out the real story .

TASC unreservedly apologises to Roy Dowding, Chairman of the B1122 Action Group, for any misunderstandings or offence caused by the reference to him and the B1122 Action Group in our last bulletin, No 5, which was made in error.

The Email from Roy which explains our error is given below.

I have been passed a copy of your latest Bulletin No.5, which seems to indicate that the B1122 Action Group had a role, or indeed implemented, the introduction of the new title "Energy Gateway".

No such thing!

This new name is related specifically to improvements to the entire length of the A12 wanted by Guy McGregor of Suffolk County Council, East Suffolk District Councils and the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, who have collectively settled on this title. This was made abundantly clear from the two recent presentations given by these bodies at Ufford and Hinton. The Four Villages By-Pass only represents the proposed first stage in an eventual chain of improvements.

The B1122 Action Group has had no part to play in this matter whatsoever.

>We therefore request that a correction be issued without delay, lest any ill feeling that might be generated by opposers to the Four Village By-Pass or the anti-Sizewell C stance of TASC be wrongly associated with our Group. We would like to enquire from where the 'information'; that led you to believe we had been involved in the "rebranding" had come.

Yours sincerely,

Roy Dowding
The B1122 Action Group