The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation ... - Planning … · Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

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


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


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


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;


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


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


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


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.


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:


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


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);


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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;


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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."


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.


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

Documents

The Port Talbot Steelworks (Power Generation ... - Planning … · Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009