the port talbot steelworks (power generation ... - planning … · planning act 2008 the...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order
ExAWQ1.01 Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s First Round of Written Questions
PINS Reference EN010062
Document No. ExAWQ1.01
Author Pinsent Masons / GVA / AECOM
Revision Date Description
0 January 2015 Submission Version
1 January 2015 Reformatted Version
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 1
Contents
1.0 GENERAL .................................................................................................. 3
2.0 COMPULSORY ACQUISITION ............................................................... 28
3.0 DESIGN, ACCESS, LAYOUT AND VISUAL ........................................... 32
4.0 DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER ...................................................... 65
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL .................................................................................. 99
6.0 HABITATS, ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION ........................ 134
7.0 FUNDING ............................................................................................... 137
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 2
Appendix
Appendix A - WQ1.06(d) – 1 in a 1000yr (climate change) Fluvial and Tidal Flood
Consequence Plans
Appendix B - WQ3.01(b) – Dwr Cymru e-mail, dated 19th November 2014
Appendix C - WQ3.01(c) – Revised Indicative Site Layout Plan (Ref:
TATA_150114_2.05_v2)
Appendix D - WQ3.04 – H&SE s42 Consultation Response, dated 14th March
2014
Appendix E - WQ3.07 – Indicative Decommissioning Programme
Appendix F - WQ3.15 – Provisional Construction & Commissioning Programme
Appendix G - WQ3.19 – E-mail correspondence on Noise Monitoring
Methodology
Appendix H - WQ3.22 – E-mail correspondence on Traffic & Transportation
Appendix I - WQ3.29 – Extracts from PDR Harbour Way Environmental
Statement – Volume 1 – Main Report – Version A
Appendix J - WQ4.14 – Tracked Changes Version of Model Provisions
Appendix K - WQ5.11 – United States Environmental Protection Agency
Database
Appendix L - WQ5.56 – Summary Table of Environmental Impact Study Areas
Appendix M - WQ7.04 – Tata Steel Group Organogram
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 3
1.0 GENERAL
Question 1.01
1.1 CAA Lighting - Can the applicant confirm the conclusion of their
consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority.
Response
1.2 The applicant considers that it has addressed all of the issues raised by
the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in its response to the Section 42
consultation. The position in respect of each issue raised by the CAA is
set out below:
1) Check aerodrome safeguarding maps lodged with relevant planning authorities
1.3 The local planning has not notified the applicant the proposed
development falls within the safeguarding zone for any aerodromes.
2) Aviation warning lighting
1.4 In response to the CAA's comments, the applicant has included
requirement 16 in Schedule 2 to the draft DCO which provides that
aviation warning lighting of a shape, colour and character specified in
CAA guidance must be installed on the stack forming part of Work No. 1
that will be 80m in height.
1.5 In addition, the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), which under
requirement 10 is required to be submitted for approval by the relevant
planning authority, states that cranes used during the construction phase
must be operated in accordance with the requirements of BS 7121
'Code of Practice for Safe Use of Cranes' (see paragraph 2.10.1).
1.6 BS 7121, Part 1 indicates that the crane user (contractor) must consult
with local aerodrome managers for permission to operate a crane that is
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 4
to be used within 6 km of the aerodrome/airfield if its height exceeds 10m
or that of surrounding structures or trees, if higher.
3) Gas venting and/or flaring
1.7 As noted in para 3.6.21 of the Environmental Statement (doc ref. 6.02)
there will be no impacts to aerodromes or aviation users within the
locality from venting or flaring as the proposed development will not vent,
and once commissioned and operational, will provide a significant
reduction in the amount of flaring required at the Port Talbot site.
4) Civil aviation charting
1.8 The proposed chimney stack(s) will be limited to a maximum height of
80m by the parameters specified in requirement 4 of Schedule 2.
Consequently, there will be no requirement for civil aviation charting. In
the event that charting was required for temporary structures such as
cranes during the construction phase, the relevant authorities would be
notified in accordance with the Code of Practice mentioned above.
5) Establish viewpoints of Ministry of Defence and local emergency services
1.9 The Secretary of State for Defence and Local emergency services
including the South Wales Police, Mid-West & Wales Fire and Rescue
and the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust have been consulted by
the applicant under s. 42. None of these organisations' have raised any
issues regarding aviation safety.
Question 1.02
1.10 City and County of Swansea Council - Can the applicant provide an
update of their position regarding agreement with City and County of
Swansea Council on the following issues:
a) Socio economic impacts;
b) Landscape and visual impacts;
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 5
c) Ecological impacts;
d) Air quality impacts; and
e) Surface water environment impacts.
Response
1.11 The applicant and CCS will be preparing a Statement of Common
Ground (SoCG) which will cover all of the issues listed in this question.
1.12 These issues were originally raised by CCS in its response to the section
42 consultation undertaken by the applicant between January and March
2014. Though dialogue with CCS, the applicant agreed to address the
issues raised by CCS within the relevant chapters of the Environmental
Statement submitted in support of the DCO application.
1.13 The applicant has discussed the issues with Richard Jones, planning
officer at CCS, and it has been confirmed that the Council will review the
submitted Environmental Statement and confirm if the issues raised have
been adequately addressed.
1.14 This is in line with the advice that Richard Jones of CCS gave to the ExA
during the Preliminary Meeting. This is recorded on page 10 of the PINS
Preliminary Meeting Note, which states:
"The City and County of Swansea confirmed that they had been in
discussions with GVA over the timetabling of the SOCG, and that once
the submissions for Deadline 1 had been received, they would be aware
of their position over the local impacts, and would be in a position to
prepare the SOCG with the Applicant."
Question 1.03
1.15 Network Rail - Can the applicant provide an update of their position
regarding agreement with Network Rail on the following issues
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 6
a) Compulsory acquisition of Network Rail land;
b) Protective Provisions; and
c) Asset Protection Agreement.
Response
a) Compulsory acquisition of Network Rail land
1.16 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with Network Rail regarding the
grant of the necessary rights across Network Rail land. The applicant
has provided Network Rail with information requested about the
proposed gas and electricity connections to enable Network Rail to
undertake its land clearance process. The clearance process has now
completed and Network Rail is currently awaiting a valuation of the rights
sought.
1.17 The next step will be for the parties to agree the form of an option and
easement agreement and a side agreement. Network Rail has indicated
that once these agreements have been settled, it will be in a position to
withdraw its objection to the compulsory purchase powers included in the
draft Order (doc ref 3.01).
b) Protective Provisions
1.18 The Protective Provisions included in Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the draft
Order have been agreed with Network Rail subject to a correction being
made to the paragraph numbering in revision 0 of the draft Order as
identified in Network Rail's relevant representation. Paragraph 5(1)
which reads "Where Network Rail is asked to give its consent pursuant to
this paragraph, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld but may
be given subject to reasonable conditions" should be numbered as
paragraph 4(5) and forms the final sub-paragraph of paragraph 4. The
following four sub-paragraphs should then be renumbered as the four
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 7
sub-paragraphs of paragraph 5. The applicant will correct this error in
the next draft of the Order.
c) Asset Protection Agreement
1.19 The applicant understands that it will be required to enter into an Asset
Protection Agreement (APA) with Network Rail prior to any works
authorised by the Order being carried out over the railway. The applicant
expects this obligation to be included in the terms of the agreements
which are proposed with Network Rail regarding the grant of the option
and easement.
Question 1.04
1.20 Can the applicant confirm whether
a) they propose to include the security provisions as recommended
by the Crime Prevention Design Advisor; and
b) whether the development forms part of the critical national
infrastructure.
Response
a) Security Provisions
1.21 The security measures to be implemented at the site will be consistent
with the high levels of security that the applicant currently maintains at
the steelworks. The security standards will meet or exceed those
recommended by the Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA), except
where those specific measures are not appropriate in the context of this
development. An explanation of how each of the recommendations will
be addressed is set out below:
i. Perimeter security: The proposed development is within the
steelworks site which has perimeter fencing that meets or
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 8
exceeds the standards recommended by the CPDA. The means
of enclosure for the proposed development must be agreed with
the relevant planning authority before commencement and
erected prior to the commissioning of the generating station (see
requirement 7). Any proposals for the perimeter fencing which
the applicant submits for approval will be designed to maintain
the existing levels of security at the site.
ii. Access control: As part of the existing security arrangements for
the steelworks, the steelworks has its own security staff onsite 24
hours a day, 365 days a year, and pedestrian and vehicular
access onto the site is controlled with no public access. The
current strict access control measures will ensure security of the
proposed development site which will be located within
steelworks.
iii. Door security: Door security systems will be designed and
installed to comply with both British and European standards.
iv. Intruder alarm: buildings that are not occupied 24 hours per day
which contain critical equipment will be protected by a monitored
silent intruder alarm system that will meet the relevant British
Standards for alarm installations.
v. CCTV: The proposed development will be integrated within the
site's existing CCTV system. This is capable of producing
evidential quality imagery with day/night time full functionality
with signage that is compliant with the Data Protection Act.
vi. Lighting. The scheme of external lighting for the proposed
development must be approved by the relevant planning
authority and installed before the generating station begins to
operate (see requirement 12). The applicant will design this
lighting to maintain the existing security standards at the site.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 9
vii. Landscaping: The proposed development is subject to a
requirement that a landscaping scheme be submitted to the
relevant planning authority and implemented in accordance with
an approved timetable (requirement 6). Depending on the
details of this scheme, it may not necessarily be appropriate for
trees to be bare stemmed up to 2 metres from the ground as
recommended by the CPDA. However, in developing the
landscaping scheme, the applicant will have regard to security
implications and include any elements that would represent a
threat to the security of the site. It should be noted that
requirement 6 requires that the approved landscaping scheme
must be implemented in accordance with the relevant
recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other
recognised codes of practice.
viii. Building: As with existing buildings on the steelworks site, the
proposed development will be designed to prevent unauthorised
access to the roof of any buildings.
b) Critical National Infrastructure
1.22 The relevant representation from the South Wales Police states that
WECTU (The Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit) has not
received any notification from the Centre for the Protection of National
Infrastructure (CPNI) indicating that this development will form part of the
critical national infrastructure (CNI). So far as the applicant is aware, the
proposed development would not form part of the critical national
infrastructure.
Question 1.05
1.23 Coal Authority - Can the applicant provide an update of their position
regarding agreement with the Coal Authority on the following issues:
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 10
a) Potential ground instability from historic mining activity that may
impact on the proposed line of the electrical connection; and
b) Quantification of and potential for prior abstraction of surface
coal resources.
Response
1.24 Paragraph 9.5.11 of the Environmental Statement (ES) outlines that the
Landmark report, presented in Appendix 9.1, has identified that the site is
indicated to lie in an area which may be affected by coal mining activity.
A British Geological Survey mineral site relating to deep coal is
registered 808m to the east. As such, coal authority reports were
obtained for the site.
1.25 Further to the receipt of the Coal Authority's Relevant Representations,
the Applicant contacted the Coal Authority on the 21st November 2014
via email and advised that site investigation works are currently ongoing
onsite and that these works will confirm whether coal deposits are
present in the area beneath the proposed development, and if so, the
extent and depth of the coal present. The Applicant has offered to
present an interim report to the Coal Authority in early 2015 which will
provide initial information on the presence of coal reserves and also on
the geotechnical stability of the site.
1.26 The Coal Authority has stated in its relevant representation that it is
satisfied on the basis of the information presented in the ES that coal
mining legacy does not create any risk of land instability to the proposed
development.
1.27 The Coal Authority responded to the applicant on the 3rd December
2014 (email received from Mark Harrison) who welcomed the site
investigation works and confirmed that the Coal Authority would like to
receive the results in early 2015. The email also confirmed that the Coal
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 11
Authority would enter into a Statement of Common Ground with the
applicant on this basis.
Question 1.06
1.28 National Resources Wales - Can the applicant provide an update of their
position regarding agreement with National Resources Wales on the
following issues:
a) An application for an Environmental Permit;
b) The preferred development option i.e. Option 1 being full
construction in a single phase or Option 2 with construction over
two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2) with only one boiler, one
stack and associated turbine sets being constructed at each
phase;
c) The potential for mitigation of the residual effects on nearby
Natura 2000 sites from aerial emissions of acid/nutrient nitrogen
deposition (and Nitrogen dioxide/Sulphur dioxide emissions)
should Option 2 be selected if the DCO is granted;
d) The need to take into consideration the climate change effects
raised in the Welsh Government’s letter dated 9 January 2014
with respect to a flooding event of a 1 in 1000 probability of
occurrence during the life of the project in relation to either fluvial
or tidal flooding at the project site;
e) Application of Best Available Techniques in the design of the
installation to ensure operational noise levels are reduced to a
minimum of 10dB below the measured background levels;
f) Application of appropriate piling techniques to ensure that the
public and environment are protected from noise and vibration
during the construction phase(s);
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 12
g) Provision of appropriate remediation measures for any
contaminated land identified by the site investigations.
Response
1.29 The applicant and NRW are currently in discussions regarding a
Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) which will cover all of the issues
listed in this question. The applicant received a revised draft of the
SoCG from NRW on 9 January 2015 which is currently being reviewed
by the applicant with a view to an agreed SoCG being submitted to the
Examining Authority shortly.
1.30 In the meantime, the applicant provides the following update on the
points raised.
a) Environmental Permit
1.31 In the applicant's meeting with NRW on 17th November 2014, it was
confirmed that the applicant and NRW will commence discussions
regarding the application for an Environmental Permit in early 2015. The
applicant attended a pre-application permit meeting with NRW on 9
January 2015.
b) Preferred Development Option
1.32 Option 1 is the applicant's preferred development option and the
applicant assumes that this option is also preferred by NRW. This point
will be confirmed in the SoCG.
c) The potential for mitigation of the residual effects on nearby Natura 2000 sites
1.33 Consultation between the applicant and NRW has been ongoing
regarding the Habitats Regulation Assessment and in particular, the
residual effects on nearby Natura 2000 sites from aerial emissions of
acid/nutrient nitrogen deposition (and Nitrogen dioxide/Sulphur dioxide
emissions) should Option 2 be selected. This has resulted in a Report to
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 13
Inform an Appropriate Assessment being produced by the applicant and
submitted to the Examining Authority (Document reference 5.05).
1.34 The conclusion of the Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment has
been agreed with NRW that Option 1 and Option 2 Phase 2 would have
no adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.
1.35 In particular, the report concluded that there is no potential for an in-
combination adverse effect on the integrity of Crymlyn Bog Special Area
of Conservation / Ramsar site from Option 2 Phase 1 of the proposed
development in combination with the three other projects - Biomass II
Power Station, Abernedd Power Station and Prenergy.
1.36 Any small increase in acid/nutrient nitrogen deposition (and Nitrogen
dioxide/Sulphur dioxide emissions) will be mitigated by more stringent air
quality targets through the implementation of the Industrial Emissions
Directive, the UK's ongoing commitment to reduction in NOx emissions
and the temporary nature of the effects. This would result in very small
contributions of the proposed development in terms of deposition and
ambient levels of pollutants in-combination and will mean that the
conservation objectives for the SAC will not be undermined.
d) The need to take into consideration the climate change effects raised in the Welsh Government’s letter dated 9 January 2014
1.37 In a meeting with the applicant on the 17th November 2014, NRW
clarified that they were satisfied with the information submitted with the
application and that the application was submitted prior to the Welsh
Government's guidance. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has now
prepared plans which show the consequences on the project site of both
fluvial and tidal flooding events with a 1 to 1000 probability of occurrence.
The plans are appended at Appendix A to this statement. The applicant
notes NRW's suggestion that the Examining Authority seeks further
clarification from the Welsh Government on this matter.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 14
e) The need to take into consideration the climate change effects raised in the Welsh Government’s letter dated 9 January 2014
1.38 As part of its pre-application discussions with NRW regarding the
Environmental Permit, the applicant will be providing NRW with
information regarding the application of 'BAT' in the design of the
installation to control operational noise levels.
1.39 Discussions are ongoing and the applicant will be seeking to agree these
matters with NRW prior to them being secured through the
Environmental Permit.
f) Application of Appropriate Piling Techniques
1.40 The applicant is seeking NRW's agreement that the measures proposed
to protect the public and the environment from noise and vibration during
the construction phase are appropriate. Requirement 11 in Schedule 2
to the draft DCO provides that a noise management plan (NMP) (which
must include a construction vibration risk assessment) must be submitted
to and approved by the relevant planning authority prior to the
commencement of works. The draft NMP is included at Appendix 15.1.5
of the Environmental Statement. Amongst other things, the draft NMP
states that:
• piling must be carried out in accordance with codes of practice for
working an piling set out in BS 5228;
• plant must comply with relevant national, EU or international
standards on noise and vibration emissions; and
• the choice of piling method will have consideration to sensitive
receptors and that noise levels will be monitored during construction.
1.41 The applicant is seeking NRW's agreement that these measures will
secure the application of appropriate piling techniques to ensure that the
public and environment are protected from noise and vibration during the
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 15
construction phase. The outcome of these discussions will be presented
in the SoCG with NRW.
g) Provision of appropriate remediation measures for any contaminated land identified by the site investigations
1.42 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with NRW regarding the
appropriate remediation measures for any contaminated land identified at
the site. Currently, the draft DCO includes requirement 19 which
requires a scheme to deal with contaminated land to be submitted and
approved by NRW prior to the commencement of any works. The
scheme must include details of remedial measures to be taken. Site
investigation works are currently ongoing and an interim report is due to
be submitted to NRW and NPTCBC (and others) in January 2015. Once
this report is available, the applicant expects to discuss the potential
remedial options available with NRW and agree the terms on which
these will be secured under Requirement 19. The position will be set out
in the SoCG with NRW.
Question 1.07
1.43 National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc - Can the applicant provide an
update of their position regarding agreement with National Grid Electricity
Transmission Plc (NGET) on the following issue:
a) Protective Provisions.
Response
1.44 NGET provided the applicant with draft Protective Provisions on 8th
January 2015. The applicant is currently considering these provisions
and will be in dialogue with NGET regarding the wording and the
inclusion of these provisions within the DCO.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 16
Question 1.08
1.45 Royal Mail Group Ltd - Can the applicant provide an update of their
position regarding agreement with Royal Mail Group Ltd on the following
issue:
a) Mitigation measures for any impacts of construction traffic on
Royal Mail operations in the Port Talbot area and in particular the
Port Talbot Delivery Office in Eagle Street (SA13 1AA).
Response
1.46 The applicant has been in contact with Royal Mail Group Ltd, most
recently on 9 January 2015, and confirm its understanding that Royal
Mail is currently reviewing the DCO application documents and will
advise the applicant of its position in respect of any further mitigation
measures that may be required in respect of any impacts of construction
traffic on Royal Mail operations in the Port Talbot area and in particular
the Port Talbot Delivery Office in Eagle Street.
Question 1.09
1.47 Associated British Ports (ABP) - Can the applicant provide an update of
their position regarding agreement with ABP on the following issues:
a) Impacts on ABP’s operations at Port Talbot dock; and
b) Additional water abstraction from ABP’s dock system at Port
Talbot.
Response
1.48 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with ABP over these issues.
1.49 Dry weather flow calculations have been developed in response to ABP’s
concerns over impacts on the dock from the additional consumptive
abstraction. This was done in order to address ABP’s concerns over
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 17
impoundment requirements to maintain a steady state of water level in
the dock for safe operating of the dock and the applicant considers that
these calculations provide a 'worst case' assessment of potential
impoundment required under prolonged periods of dry weather. Tata are
awaiting ABP's approval of these calculations which will form the basis of
a SOCG which is currently being drafted for ABP comment.
Question 1.10
1.50 Western Power - Can the applicant provide an update of their position
regarding agreement with Western Power on the following issues:
a) Access;
b) Re-alignment /diversion impacts on operations and operational
costs; and
c) Protective Measures.
Response
1.51 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with WPD regarding the
protective provisions to be included in the Order and the terms of any
agreement that may be required between the parties, particularly
regarding the modifications to WPD's substations (Grange and Cefn
Gwrgan) that form Work no. 2 of the authorised development.
a) Access
1.52 The applicant does not expect the proposed development to interfere
with access to WPD's substations, overhead lines or underground cables
although access to the substations may be temporarily restricted during
the works to those substations that form part of the authorised
development. It is the applicant's intention that the modifications to the
substations would be carried out by WPD and that any interference to
access that occurs as a result would either be subject to protective
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 18
provisions in the Order that have been agreed with WPD or to the terms
of an agreement between the parties.
b) Re-alignment /diversion impacts on operations and operational costs
1.53 The applicant does not anticipate that the proposed development will
require the re-alignment or diversion of any WPD apparatus. However,
in the event that any diversions were required, it is anticipated that these
would be subject to protective provisions for the benefit of WPD that are
currently being drafted for inclusion in the Order. The only impacts on
WPD's apparatus are the modifications to the Grange and Cefn Gwrgan
substations. The applicant's intends for these works to be carried out by
WPD in accordance with the terms of an agreement between the parties.
c) Protective Measures
1.54 At WPD's request, the applicant is currently preparing draft protective
provisions for WPD's apparatus that are appropriate in the context of this
Order.
Question 1.11
1.55 Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University / Public Health Wales (PHW) - Can
the applicant provide an update of their position regarding agreement
with PHW on the following issues:
a) Air quality mitigation measures during the construction phase to
address construction traffic pollution and exhaust stack
emissions;
b) Construction-phase dust effects mitigation measures;
c) Mitigation of potential impacts on geology, soils and
hydrogeology resulting from the proposed development during
the construction, operation and decommissioning phases;
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 19
d) Mitigation of any adverse effects on controlled waters from
intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water associated with
ancillary equipment and rainwater run-off from associated
construction activities; and
e) Mitigation of any adverse surface water runoff effects on the
drainage channel (Middle Mother Ditch) outside the Order Limits,
and other downstream water bodies / courses.
Response
1.56 The relevant representation submitted by Abertawe Bro Morgannwg
University / Public Health Wales (PHW) states that PHW concurs with
the comments previously provided by Public Health England (PHE) in
response to the scoping report and the section 42 consultation.
1.57 PHE has now confirmed in its relevant representation that it is satisfied
that the development’s potential impacts on public health have been
adequately addressed and, where necessary, suitable mitigation has
been proposed.
1.58 On the basis that PHW has not raised any additional points in its relevant
representation, the applicant has proceeded on the basis that PHW is
also satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant in
respect of the matters listed in this question. However, the applicant will
seek confirmation from PHW that this is in fact the case.
1.59 The measures proposed in relation to each of the issues listed in the
question are set out below and it is the applicant's understanding that
PHW is satisfied with these measures.
a) Air Quality Mitigation Measures
1.60 Measures to mitigate air quality impacts arising from construction traffic
are set out in the dust management plan (DMP) that must be submitted
to and approved by the relevant planning authority under requirement 10
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 20
of the draft DCO. The DMP must be substantially in accordance with the
outline version appended to the Code of Construction Practice at
Appendix 15.1 of the Environmental Statement. The measures set out in
the outline DMP reflect the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM)
best practice and include:
• Damping down shall control dust during prolonged periods of dry
weather together with the implementation of site speed limits set at a
maximum of 10 mph as appropriate.
• All haul lorries shall be appropriately sheeted and stockpiles of fine
materials shall be covered or damped down as required.
• The MWC contractor shall ensure that public highways are kept clear
of mud and other debris that may have been tracked from the site.
• Extra care will be taken to minimise airborne cement dust.
• Any grit blasting operations shall be shielded.
• The monitoring of dust shall form part of the daily site inspections and
part of the traffic light monitoring system.
1.61 A pollution prevention plan (PPP) must also be submitted to the local
planning authority for approval under requirement 10. The outline PPP
at Appendix 15.1.2 of the Code of Construction Practice sets out
mitigation measures to control pollution to air (see section 2.3).
1.62 The applicant assumes question 1.11(a) is referring to vehicle exhaust
emissions during the construction phase, rather than the stack emissions
(during the operational phase). Table 5.7.1 of the ES sets out the
mitigations measures to be implemented in respect of construction
emissions. On the basis that these measures are implemented,
paragraph 5.7.4 of the ES concludes that there will be no significant
effects from construction traffic emissions.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 21
b) Construction-phase dust effects mitigation measures
1.63 The outline DMP referred to above also sets out mitigation measures in
respect of the control of construction phase dust more generally. These
measures and the monitoring regime that is also required under the DMP
will ensure that construction dust effects will not give rise to any public
health risks.
c) Mitigation of potential impacts on geology, soils and hydrogeology
1.64 Section 9.7 and Table 9.4 Summary of Assessment of the ES outline the
potential effects on controlled waters and surface water runoff during
construction. There are no significant potential impacts during operation
and decommissioning phases relating to geology, soils and
hydrogeology. The outline CoCP and Water Management Plan (WMP)
also set out mitigation measures in respect of spoil /material
management and control of construction phase dust more
generally. These mitigation measures and the monitoring regime that is
also required under the WMP will ensure that any effects on geology,
soils and hydrogeology will not give rise to any public health risks.
d) Mitigation of any adverse effects on controlled waters from intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water
1.65 The CoCP and WMP provide details of how any intermittent, construction
derived discharges of water will be controlled throughout the construction
phase. Through the implementation of the COCP and WMP (as secure
by Requirement 10), any adverse effects will be managed to an
acceptable level.
e) Mitigation of any adverse effects on controlled waters from intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water
1.66 The WMP provides details of how any intermittent, construction derived
discharges of water will be controlled throughout the construction phase.
There will be no discharges during operation and decommissioning
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 22
phase. Due to the scale of the electrical connection works, the distance
of the Middle Mother Ditch and other watercourses outside the Order
Limits, it is unlikely that there would be any significant potential adverse
effects to these receptors. Nevertheless, through the implementation of
the CoCP and WMP (mandatory by Requirement 10), any adverse
effects will be managed to an acceptable level.
Question 1.12
1.67 Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (NPTCBC) - Can the
applicant provide an update of their position regarding agreement with
NPTCBC on the following issues:
a) Dispersion modelling of air quality in relation to nitrogen dioxide,
sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulates (PM10
and PM2.5);
b) Confirmation that there will be no increase in overall air
emissions should existing power generation and Phase 1 of
Option 2 be operational concurrently;
c) Mitigation measures for construction dust through
implementation of an approved Dust Management Plan (DMP);
d) Mitigation measures to limit construction noise and vibration to
acceptable levels;
e) Restrictions on working hours;
f) Maximum final dimensions and finishes of project buildings to
minimise visual impact;
g) Translocation of protected species (kidney vetch);
h) Further surveys for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder Bees;
i) Construction traffic management plan; and
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 23
j) Petroleum carbon analysis within site investigations to determine
human health risk.
Response
1.68 The applicant and NPTCBC propose to enter into a SoCG and it is
anticipated that this will record the position of the parties in relation to all
of the issues listed in this question. Discussions regarding the SOCG
are ongoing, but the applicant's provisional understanding of the current
position in respect of each issue is set out below.
a) Dispersion modelling of air quality in relation to nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5)
1.69 The applicant believes that NPTCBC is satisfied with the dispersion
modelling carried out by the applicant which assesses the impact of
nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulates
(PM10 and PM2.5). Discussions have been held with Martin Hooper,
Pollution Control Officer at NPTCBC. When asked about the stack
modelling, Mr Hooper indicated that he would not be commenting on the
stack dispersion modelling but would accept the outcome of the NRW
review of the air quality assessment and modelling. The Council's
position will be confirmed in the SOCG.
b) Confirmation that there will be no increase in overall air emissions should existing power generation and Phase 1 of Option 2 be operational concurrently
1.70 The applicant assessment concludes that overall aerial emissions from
the steel works will not increase in Phase 1 of Option 2. This is due to
the fact that it is not economical to operate the new boiler on natural gas.
As such, the new boiler will operate using gas from the blast furnaces
that would otherwise be flared on the site meaning that overall aerial
emissions would not increase. The applicant is seeking NPTCBC's
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 24
agreement to this point and the Council's position will be confirmed in the
SOCG.
c) Mitigation measures for construction dust
1.71 Requirement 10 of the draft DCO reflects NPTCBC's request that the
DCO be subject to a requirement that a dust management plan (DMP) be
approved by the authority prior to the commencement of construction
and NPTCBC has indicated that it is satisfied with this wording. The
position will be confirmed in the SOCG.
d) Mitigation measures to limit construction noise and vibration
1.72 Requirement 11 of the draft DCO reflects NPTCBC's request that the
DCO be subject to suitable noise controls during the construction phase.
This requirement requires a noise management plan (which must include
a construction vibration risk assessment) to be approved by the authority
prior to the commencement of construction and NPTCBC has indicated
in its relevant representation that it is satisfied with this wording, but the
position will be confirmed in due course in the SOCG.
e) Restrictions on working hours;
1.73 The applicant notes NPTCBC's relevant representation regarding the
proposed working hours in requirement 14. This issue will be discussed
with NPTCBC with a view to seeking an agreement and the confirmed
position will be set out in the SOCG.
f) Maximum final dimensions and finishes of project buildings
1.74 The applicant has discussed the maximum building parameters and the
requirement to obtain approval of building finishes with NPTCBC. The
applicant also discussed the proposed revisions to the maximum
parameters with NPTCBC before submitting details of these to the
Examining Authority on 9 December 2014. The parties' position on these
issues will be confirmed in the SOCG.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 25
g) Translocation of protected species (kidney vetch)
1.75 In order to facilitate the site investigation works which are currently taking
place on site, the kidney vetch identified in the ES has already been
translocated in accordance with the methodology set out in Appendix 6.7
of the ES. Reports detailing this translocation have been sent to
NPTCBC for their comment, and the parties' position will be set out in the
SOCG.
h) Further surveys for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder Bees
1.76 The applicant understood from the pre-application consultation with
NPTCBC that further surveys for Shrill and Brown Banded Carder Bees
were not required. The applicant is seeking clarification from the Council
and the position will be confirmed in the SOCG.
i) Construction traffic management plan
1.77 NPTCBC has requested that a construction traffic management plan
(CTMP) be submitted for approval by the authority. The applicant
considers this request has been adequately addressed through
requirement 11(1)(b) in Schedule 2 to the draft DCO. The position will be
confirmed in the SOCG.
j) Petroleum carbon analysis within site investigations to determine human health risk
1.78 The site investigations that are currently ongoing will include a specific
petroleum hydrocarbon analysis. The results of this work will be shared
with NPTCBC in early 2015 so that appropriate measures, if necessary,
can be included in the DCO.
Question 1.13
1.79 Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council (RCTCBC) – Can the
applicant state whether there any outstanding highways issues that need
to be agreed with RCTCBC.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 26
Response
1.80 A late representation was submitted by RCTCBC (dated 23rd October
2014) during the Pre-Examination phase. This was accepted as a
relevant representation by the Examining Authority in the Rule 6 letter
dated 13 November 2014. The representation submitted by RCTCBC
concludes that: "The proposed development has no significant adverse
impact on RCTCBC local and strategic highway network and therefore
no highway objection is raised."
1.81 The applicant has contacted RCTCBC seeking confirmation that there
are no outstanding highways issues that need to be agreed between
RCTCBC and the applicant.
Question 1.14
1.82 Coal reserves - Can the applicant provide a quantitative assessment of
the extent of potential sterilisation of coal reserves associated with the
development.
Response
1.83 As per our response to Question 1.05, the Applicant contacted the Coal
Authority on the 21st November via email and advised that site
investigation works are currently ongoing onsite and that these works
would confirm whether coal deposits are present in the area beneath the
proposed development, and if so, the extent and depth of the coal
present.
1.84 The Applicant offered to present an interim report to the Coal Authority in
early 2015. The Coal Authority responded on the 3rd December 2014
(email received from Mark Harrison) who welcomed the site investigation
works and that they would like to receive the results in the new year.
The Coal Authority has confirmed that it will enter into a Statement of
Common Ground on this basis.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 27
Question 1.15
1.85 Electric and/or magnetic fields – Can the applicant provide evidence that
the location, design, construction and operation of the power station and
associated distribution infrastructure will ensure compliance with the
current ICNIRP guidelines.
Response
1.86 The applicant considers that the only element of the proposed
development that could give rise to electric and/or magnetic fields is the
66kV electrical cables connection forming Work No. 2.
1.87 The World Health Organisation advises that, beneath overhead electricity
lines, magnetic fields can be about 20 µT (http://www.who.int/peh-
emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/).
1.88 This is considerably lower than the safe exposure levels set out in the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
guidelines. In 1998, the ICNIRP issued revised guidelines giving a
reference level of 100 μT for safe public exposure to magnetic fields at
power frequencies. In 2010, the ICNIRP increased this reference level to
a less stringent 200μT, although the previous reference level of 100 μT
remains the basis of UK guidance.
1.89 It is anticipated that the majority of the electrical connection forming Work
No. 2 will be installed underground, therefore it is expected that the
magnetic field level will be significantly less than 20 µT. Even in the
event that the electrical cables were installed above ground, the
magnetic field level potentially generated by a 66kV electrical cable will
be significantly below the current ICNIRP guidelines of 100 μT.
1.90 Accordingly, the applicant considers that the authorised development will
operate in compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 28
2.0 COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
Question 2.01
2.1 Does the applicant expect the representations from statutory undertakers
to be withdrawn and if so by what date or alternatively whether it intends
to present evidence that the tests set out in s127 and s138 are met. The
applicant is notified that unless such evidence is presented sufficiently
early in the examination (for example at the application stage) for it to be
examined it may not be possible to conclude that any statutory
undertakers land or rights may be acquired.
Response
2.2 The applicant expects all representations from statutory undertakers to
be withdrawn on the basis of appropriate protective provisions being
agreed with each undertaker. At this stage, the applicant expects the
withdrawal of all representations from statutory undertakers to be
confirmed to the Examining Authority by mid-March 2015.
Question 2.02
2.3 Order land limits - Can the applicant provide justification for the dimensions of the order land identified on the land plans as 01/07 and
02/04.
Response
2.4 Plot number 01/07 will accommodate utilities and communications pipes (forming part of Work No. 1C) which will connect Work No. 1A to the
existing on-site infrastructure situated on the other side of the Ogmore
Vale Railway Line from the proposed site of the generating station.
2.5 The width length of plot 01/07 (across the railway line) is determined by
the extent of the Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ownership at this
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 29
location. As the Applicant owns the land either side of the railway line,
no further land or rights are required to enable the connections to be run
from the new generating station into the existing infrastructure.
2.6 The width of plot 01/07 has been determined to allow sufficient flexibility
as to the placement of the new connections as part of Work No. 1C. As
the exact locations where these connections will ingress and egress
Work No. 1A have yet to be determined and will not be known until the
detailed design stage, the exact angle and route of approach that the
new connections will take into the existing connections and where they
will cross the railway line within plot 01/07 is not yet known. Once the
construction of the connections within plot 01/07 has been completed
and the final location of the connections known, the Applicant will only
acquire easements over the area actually required.
2.7 Plot number 02/04 is required to accommodate the 66kV cables electrical which form part of Work No. 2 connecting Work No. 1A to the
Grange and Cefn Gwrgan substations.
2.8 The length of plot 02/04 (across the railway line) is determined by the
extent of the Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ownership at this
location. As the Applicant owns the land either side of the railway line,
no further land or rights are required to enable the 66kV cable to
continue its route from Work No. 1A to the Grange and Cefn Gwrgan
substations.
2.9 The width of plot 02/04 is dictated by the width of the limits of deviation
for Work No.2. The limits of deviation have been drawn to allow:
• an excavated trench to be cut at a sufficient angle to allow access
underneath the railway line; and
• a sufficient degree of flexibility so that those designing and laying the
cable route can adapt to local ground conditions and the location of
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 30
existing services which will only become fully apparent when the
cables trench is excavated.
Question 2.03
2.10 Jointly agreed statements – Can the applicant provide a jointly agreed
statement between the applicant and each affected party as to the
progress made in, and current position of, negotiations on reaching
agreement on the acquisition of land, rights or easements as applicable.
In each case, state whether or not all reasonable alternatives to
compulsory acquisition have been explored – including the use of way
leaves, temporary access, private treaty, option agreement and other
agreements – and, if so, why have those alternatives been rejected.
Response
2.11 The only party affected by the powers of compulsory acquisition in the
Order is Network Rail Infrastructure Limited. The following joint
statement has been agreed between the applicant and Network Rail.
2.12 The rights sought by the applicant over Network Rail property are
easements to cross the Ogmore Vale railway line in two locations with
utilities pipes and a 66kV electrical cable respectively. The rights are
described in the book of reference (doc ref. 4.03) in relation to plots
01/07 and 02/04.
2.13 The draft Order includes protective provisions for the benefit of Network
Rail which provide that the applicant may not exercise powers of
compulsorily acquisition over Network Rail's property except with the
consent of Network Rail. The parties are therefore in discussions with a
view to entering into the appropriate arrangements for the necessary
rights over the railway line to be granted to the applicant by agreement
rather than being acquired compulsorily under the powers in the Order.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 31
2.14 The Applicant has provided Network Rail with information about the
proposed crossings to enable Network Rail to undertake its land
clearance process. Network Rail confirmed on 22 December 2014 that
the land clearance process has been completed and Network Rail is
currently awaiting a valuation of the rights sought.
2.15 Once this valuation has been undertaken, the parties intend to agree the
form of an option and easement agreement which will provide the
applicant with an option to acquire the necessary easements across the
railway line in the event that it proceeds with the proposed development.
The agreement will also require the applicant to enter into an Asset
Protection Agreement (APA) with Network Rail prior to any works being
carried out over the railway.
2.16 Once the terms of an option to grant an easement and a form of
easement have been settled, the Applicant will confirm this to be the
mechanism through which rights over Network Rail's land will be granted
and will further confirm that it will not exercise the compulsory purchase
powers contained within the draft Order. Following this confirmation
Network Rail will be in a position to withdraw its objection to the
compulsory purchase powers included in the draft Order.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 32
3.0 DESIGN, ACCESS, LAYOUT AND VISUAL
Question 3.01
3.1 Applicant’s Letter dated 8th December
a) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their assertion that
the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units width
dimensions are due to “design optimisation”.
b) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their statement that
the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units width
dimensions are as a result of Statutory Undertaker comments.
c) Can the applicant provide a revised indicative site layout plan
showing the revised orientation and dimensions of the turbine hall
and cooling tower units together with the alignment of the Dwr
Cymru Cyfyngedig Afan valley trunk sewer.
d) Can the applicant provide a table of dimensions for Option 2 Phase
1
e) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 2
Requirement 4 (2) (b) which ensures the maximum dimensions are
not exceeded.
f) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 2
Requirement 20 which ensures the maximum dimensions contained
with DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded.
g) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 5
which ensures the maximum dimensions contained with DCO
Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 33
Response
a) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their assertion that the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units width dimensions are due to “design optimisation”
3.2 Design development work has been ongoing since the submission of the
DCO application. The designers have proposed the revised changes to
the turbine hall and cooling towers for the reasons set out below.
3.3 The increase to the width of the turbine hall will allow the steam turbines
to be positioned such that the overall footprint of the building could be
reduced. Initial indications are that the optimised turbine hall footprint
could potentially be reduced by ~30-40% (when compared to maximum
footprint currently described in the DCO) saving around £1.5-2m in
material and construction costs. In addition the revised positioning of the
turbines, allowed for by the wider building, minimises the length of high
pressure steam pipe-work connecting the boiler to the turbine thereby
reducing cost and minimising any risks associated with high pressure
steam. Finally the revised positioning of the turbines allows for a much
smaller span for the turbine hall crane - again reducing costs.
3.4 The increased cooling tower width dimensions allow for a better fit on the
site especially with respect to the town sewer and also allows for the
addition of acoustic cladding (if required) to minimise noise from the
units.
b) Can the applicant provide evidence to support their statement that the changes to the Turbine Hall and Cooling Tower Units width dimensions are as a result of Statutory Undertaker comments
3.5 One of the factors that led to the revised parameters being developed
was the dimensions of the protective envelope which Welsh Water
require around the Afan Valley trunk sewer.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 34
3.6 The initial indicative layout of the plant was developed on the basis that it
was possible to build above the alignment of the sewer. This assumption
was made on the basis that the former coke ovens at the steelworks had
previously stood at this location. However, following a condition survey
the sewer and ongoing consultation with Welsh Water, it was established
that a protective envelope would need to be included around the
alignment of the sewer. The dimensions of the protective envelope were
confirmed in an email to the applicant dated 19 November 2014
(included at Appendix B).
3.7 A revised layout has therefore been developed which avoids the need to
build above the sewer. This revised layout has necessitated
amendments to the proposed widths of the turbine hall and cooling tower
unit (as set out in response to question 3.01(a) above).
c) Can the applicant provide a revised indicative site layout plan showing the revised orientation and dimensions of the turbine hall and cooling tower units together with the alignment of the Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig Afan valley trunk sewer.
3.8 See the revised plan at Appendix C.
d) Can the applicant provide a table of dimensions for Option 2 Phase 1
3.9 The Applicant proposes to add the following table to Requirement 4(2) in
the next iteration of the DCO which provides the maximum parameters
for Option 2 Phase 1:
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 35
(1)
Element of
authorised
development
(2)
max. height
(m)
(3)
max. width
(m)
(4)
max. length
(m)
(5)
Other
parameters
Stacks 80 - - maximum of 1
Cooling tower
unit 22 25 80
maximum
area of
1,280m2
maximum
volume of
28,160m3
Turbine hall 25 45 55
maximum
area of
2,475m2
maximum
volume of
61,875m3
Boiler house 35 (at apex) 45 60 -
Switchgear
station 20 55 35
-
3.10 In addition, the applicant will be providing parameters for other elements
of Work No. 1 - see the applicant's response to Questions 4.05, 4.06 and
4.08.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 36
e) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 4 (2) (b) which ensures the maximum dimensions are not exceeded.
3.11 The applicant does not consider that requirement 4(2)(b) needs to be
revised to ensure that the maximum parameters are not exceeded. The
drafting already provides that the maximum parameters must not be
exceeded except where amendments to those parameters have been
approved by the relevant planning authority in accordance with
requirement 20(1).
3.12 The applicant considers that the ability to amend the parameters in
clearly defined circumstances is necessary to ensure the DCO provides
a degree of flexibility to accommodate a final design which could involve
small extensions to those parameters.
3.13 As is normal for a project of this type, a detailed design has not yet been
developed and this will be prepared by a contractor who will be
appointed in due course. If the final design exceeded any of the
maximum parameters specified in requirement 4, the procedure specified
in requirement 20(1) would allow the relevant planning authority to
approve amendments to those parameters.
3.14 Crucially, requirement 20(2) provides that approval of any such
amendments may only be given where it has been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the relevant planning authority that those amendments
would not give rise to any materially new or materially different
environmental effects to those assessed in the ES. Accordingly, only
amendments which remain within the scope of the likely significant
effects identified in the ES could be approved.
3.15 Requirement 20 is based on requirement 37 in Schedule 4 to the Model
Provisions. This provides that the IPC (now abolished) may approve
subsequent amendments to any details approved following the grant of
development consent. The model requirement does not expressly state
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 37
the parameters within which subsequent amendments may be approved,
whereas requirement 20 expressly provides that amendments to the
parameters may only be approved to the extent that they would not give
rise to any materially new or materially different environmental effects to
those assessed in the ES. This wording ensures that the scheme that is
implemented cannot be materially different from that assessed in the ES
and, in practice, means that only minor extensions to the parameters
could be approved.
3.16 There are precedents for DCOs providing flexibility in terms equivalent to
this. For example, requirement 3 of the Network Rail (Ipswich Chord)
Order 2012 provides that the authorised development "must be carried
out in accordance with the design drawings certified under article 32
(certification of plans etc.) unless otherwise approved by the relevant
planning authority". In that case, the ability for variations to certified
plans to be agreed with the relevant planning authority is not expressly
constrained by any reference to the scope of the environmental impact
assessment.
3.17 The same wording is used in the National Grid (North London
Reinforcement Project) Order 2014, but in that case the ability for the
relevant authority to agree variations to the certified plans is qualified by
wording which provides that such variations may only be approved "in
relation to immaterial changes where it has been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the relevant planning authority or relevant highway
authority that the subject matter of the approval or agreement sought is
unlikely to give rise to any materially new or materially different
environmental effects from those assessed in the environmental
statement" (see requirement 17).
3.18 Requirement 34 in Schedule 1 to the East Anglia ONE Offshore Wind
Farm Order 2014 provides that the relevant planning authority may
approve amendments or variations to approved details "in relation to
immaterial changes where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 38
the relevant planning authority or that other person that the subject
matter of the agreement sought is unlikely to give rise to any materially
new or materially different environmental effects from those assessed in
the environmental statement."
3.19 The applicant considers that the scope of flexibility provided by
requirements 4 and 20 is consistent with the approach adopted in
previous DCOs such as these.
f) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 20 which ensures the maximum dimensions contained with DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded
3.20 For the reasons given in response to Question 3.01(e) above, the
applicant does not consider that it is necessary to amend the drafting of
requirement 20.
g) Can the applicant propose revised drafting for DCO Schedule 5 which ensures the maximum dimensions contained with DCO Schedule 2 Requirement 4 are not exceeded
3.21 For the reasons given in response to Question 3.01(e) above, the
applicant does not consider it is necessary to amend the drafting of
Schedule 5.
3.22 These provisions purely relate to the procedure by which any application
for a consent, agreement or approval requirement by a requirement may
be determined. In particular, the provisions in paragraph 1(3) expressly
provide that the deemed approval mechanism in paragraph 1(2) would
not apply to an application to amend the maximum parameters in the
event that those amendments would be likely to give rise to any
materially new or materially different environmental effects to those
assessed in the ES.
3.23 This ensures that amendments to the parameters may only be approved
by the relevant planning authority where it has been demonstrated to the
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 39
satisfaction of the relevant planning authority that those amendments
would not give rise to any materially new or materially different
environmental effects.
Question 3.02
3.24 Plumes – Can the applicant confirm that there will be no plumes resulting
from either the burning or cooling operations of the proposed
development.
Response
3.25 The applicant can confirm that the proposed development will be
designed to ensure there are no visible plumes from cooling or burning
operations during normal operating and climactic conditions.
3.26 The cooling tower unit forming part of the proposed development will be
a modern hybrid system, or a more advanced technology, and will be
designed to result in no visible plumes (except in exceptionally adverse
weather conditions). The use of such systems is generally considered as
the 'best available technique'.
3.27 Burning operations at the proposed development will not give rise to
visible plumes from the boiler stacks. This is because of the high
temperature and low moisture content of the process gas that is to be
combusted.
Question 3.03
3.28 Durability – Can the applicant provide evidence as to the durability of the
proposed 0.7mm thick metal cladding for the buildings in relation to the
marine coastal environment in which the building will be located.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 40
Response
3.29 The 0.7mm cladding which is referred to in the Environmental Statement
is a preliminary selection by the Applicant.
3.30 At the detailed design stage the Applicant would finalise the style and
thickness of the external materials of the building to ensure that they are
appropriate to accommodate the final design and external factors,
including the marine coastal environment.
3.31 NPTCBC will have the opportunity to input into these proposals at the
detailed design stage and to ensure that the Applicant's proposed
cladding material is sufficiently durable and suitable for the coastal
location. Under requirement 4(3)(b) of Schedule 2 to the draft DCO the
Applicant's proposals for the 'colour, materials and surface finishes of all
permanent buildings and structures' have to be submitted to NPTCBC for
approval before works can commence.
Question 3.04
3.32 Health & safety – Can the applicant provide evidence of their
consultations with the H&SE regarding the identification and mitigation of
risks to site operatives and the local community during the construction,
operation and decommissioning phases.
Response
3.33 The applicant has carried out the following consultation with the H&SE to
obtain the H&SE's views on the identification and mitigation of risks to
site operatives and the local community arising from the project:
1) The H&SE was consulted at part of the EIA consultation on the
scoping report (September 2013). The H&SE's response (dated 22
October 2013) appears in Appendix 2 of the Scoping Opinion.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 41
2) The proposed development was discussed in a meeting between
the applicant and the H&SE in November 2013 as part of the
applicant’s process of engagement with relevant regulators and
stakeholders.
3) The H&SE was consulted at part of the applicant's s42 consultation
on the proposed development. The H&SE's formal response to the
s42 consultation was received on 14 March 2014 and is appended
to this document at Appendix D.
3.34 A Health & Safety Statement (Document Ref: 10.05) was submitted as
part of the DCO application. This confirms that the H&SE was consulted
by the applicant about the proposed development and sets out the
results of that consultation in terms of the identification and mitigation of
risks to site operatives and the local community arising from the project.
3.35 In particular, the statement confirms that, as suggested by the H&SE,
that an addendum to the applicant's 2013 Safety Report will be prepared
which will fully describe any potential increase in the on-site or off-site
risks and the measures being put in place to control them to ALARP.
Question 3.06
3.36 Working corridor – Can the applicant clarify their statement “much less in
reality than shown” and confirm whether such would reduce the extent of
the compulsory acquisition powers sought.
Response
3.37 The permanent cable trench and the temporary working corridor required
during installation will both be narrower than the limits of deviation for
Work No. 2 shown on the Works Plan.
3.38 The applicant expects the width of the working corridor to be
approximately 5 metres. However, the limits of deviation for Work No. 2
are wider than this and reflect the need for flexibility as to the final
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 42
alignment of the cables installation. Where there are existing services
already in place, deeper trenches will be needed which will require a
wider excavating area. Those designing and laying the cable route
require room to adapt to local ground conditions and the location of
existing services, which may only become fully apparent when the cables
trench is excavated. At present, the applicant cannot determine where
within the limits of deviation the cables will be laid and, therefore, where
the working corridor will be situated within these limits.
3.39 The majority of Work No. 2 is on the applicant's land and therefore is not
subject to powers of compulsory acquisition. The only two parcels which
are subject to powers of compulsory acquisition are the two sections of
the Ogmore Vale Railway Line owned by Network Rail Infrastructure
Limited. Paragraph 4 of the Protective Provisions agreed with NR
provides that the applicant may only acquire or use NR land with NR's
prior consent. Therefore, the width of the working corridor and the
permanent easement that is proposed to be acquired over these two
parcels of land will be determined by agreement with NR. Consequently,
there is no requirement to reduce the extent of compulsory purchase
powers provided for in the draft DCO.
3.40 As noted in the response to question 4.08, the applicant will specify in
requirement 4 of Schedule 2 to the next draft of the DCO a maximum
width of 4 metres for the cables where installed below ground or
supported by existing above-ground structures.
Question 3.07
3.41 Decommissioning – Can the applicant provide an indicative programme
for the subsequent decommissioning of the newly redundant plant in
relation to the cessation of emissions, noise etc.
Response
3.42 See indicative programme at Appendix E.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 43
Question 3.08
3.43 Commencement of Option 1 Phase 2 – Can the applicant confirm and
define the milestone that will become the start date for the “within 10
years” period.
Response
3.44 If the authorised development is constructed in two stages, the start date
for the 10 year period within which the second stage must commence is
the commencement of the first stage of the authorised development.
3.45 "Commencement" is defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 as meaning
the carrying out of any material operation comprised in or carried out for
the purposes of the authorised development. This definition mirrors the
drafting of section 155 of the Planning Act 2008 (when development
begins).
Question 3.09
3.46 Cooling water – Can the applicant quantify the extent of make-up water
that is anticipated to sustain the open circuit cooling.
Response
3.47 Initial thermal design of the plant has shown an actual water make up
requirement of approximately 250m3/hr (blowdown and evaporative
losses) for the cooling towers at the normal base case operation.
Maximum requirements at abnormal operating conditions are ~340m3/hr.
3.48 These levels are significantly lower than those assessed in the ES which
was prepared on a precautionary 'worse-case' basis. In addition the
anticipated blowdown requirement from the new boilers is only 20m3/hr
which is again significantly less than the 150m3/hr assumed in the ES
and is likely to be a net reduction in abstraction for this requirement when
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 44
considerate is recognised that the blowdown from the existing boilers
which are to be decommissioned is currently more than this.
3.49 The applicant has assessed the used worst case in the ES and this is
shown on Figure 14.2 and 14.3 and outlined within Appendix 14.6 and
14.7 and in the following sections within the ES which quantify the extent
of make-up water required:
"Paragraph 14.7.17 - The cooling towers will require approximately 600
m3/hr of water abstraction to compensate for evaporation and drift losses
(approximately 300 m3/hr) and blow down loses (approximately 300
m3/hr) respectively. A further abstraction volume of approximately 150
m3/hr will be required to compensate for the new proposed boilers blow
down losses. This gives a total abstraction requirement of approximately
750 m3/hr (7,000,000 m3/yr).
Paragraph 14.7.18 - As mentioned, this abstraction volume will be an
additional abstraction requirement from the River Afan on top of the
current average Port Talbot site abstraction rate at 10,000,000 m3/yr
(based on April 2011- March 2012 abstraction data – Appendix 14.8,
Table 14.8.1). However, the additional abstraction required for the
proposed new boilers will be negated by the decommissioning of the four
old boilers, making the total additional abstraction requirement for the
proposed development during operation approximately 600 m3/hr
(5,000,000 m3/yr). This gives an overall abstraction requirement of
approximately 15,000,000 m3/yr. This is above the current abstraction
license for the River Afan (14,933,610 m3/yr), however it is unlikely that
in reality the additional abstraction required will exceed the current
licensed limit as the volumes outlined above have been estimated and
rounded to provide an upper limit of abstraction."
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 45
Question 3.10
3.50 Cooling water – Can the applicant quantify the statement “significantly
less water volumes will be required for the operation of the proposed
development than the present system”.
Response
3.51 The proposed development will result in a significant reduction in
abstraction water (due to decommissioning of once-through cooling
systems on the old turbines). However, there will be a net increase in
consumptive losses due to evaporation and blowdown from cooling
towers, although this will be significantly less than originally assessed in
ES as outlined in response to question 3.09.
3.52 Appendices 14.6 and 14.7 of the ES provide summaries of proposed
water volumes from current operations compared to the proposed
development. Appendices 14.6 and 14.7 calculate that the total gross
abstraction with the proposed development will decrease by 64% for
Option 1, and increase by 2% increase for Option 2 Phase 1. This is
considered to be the worst case scenario as future actual losses are
currently unknown.
Question 3.11
3.53 Plumes – Can the applicant provide evidence of the design methods and
standards that will be applied to “address any potential visibility issues
from the release of plumes”.
Response
3.54 See the answer to question 3.02.
-
The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation Enhancement) Order Applicant’s Response to the Examining Authority’s ExAWQ1.01 First Round of Written Questions
January 2015 46
Question 3.12
3.55 Natural gas usage – Can the applicant quantify the likely extent, duration
and frequency of natural gas usage.
Response
3.56 During normal operation process gases, mainly Blast Furnace Gas
(BFG), will be fired on the boilers. The Natural gas will be used for;
1) Boiler start up which is normally required after a statutory shutdown
every 2 years or in the event of any unplanned extended downtime
of the boiler for example a failure of a component or boiler tube leak.
2) Flame stabilisation which is required if and when the calorific value
(CV) of the BFG drops below 3 MJ/m3. This is not normal operation
and can occur as a result of various operational issues with the blast
furnaces. Based on operational experience, this drop in CV is only
expected to occur for a few hours, on approximately two occasions a
year.
3) Maintaining minimum load of the boiler/turbine. This scenario would
occur if and when the boiler loses its main fuel supply of BFG.
Natural gas would then be utilised to maintain minimum load to keep
the boiler/turbine operational. The minimum load is approximately
50% (subject to confirmation as the design develops) of the overall
boiler capacity. Based on initial estimates, approximately 15000
m3/hr of natural gas per boiler will be required to maintain boiler(s)
on minimum load. This scenario could occur when a blast furnace
goes offline for maintenance on a planned basis or has to come
offline in an unplanned fashion (either for problems within the Bla